At 11/18/13 06:43 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:42 PM, Rustygames wrote: Tom, I think you've made the wrong choice here. It must be a difficult thing to do sometimes but standing up for freedom of speech and expression is so important. NG is one of the last places that stand up for that, please don't let us down. Put the game back up with a tactful message in the comments. Do the right thing

Why don't you host it on your site?

Again, why make the thread to begin with if you just want to shut up anyone that disagrees with what he did?

Tom, unlike you, understands that he alone did not make this site what it is.

The answer is obvious, most of us cannot afford our own website, we don't have a base to generate ad revenue to keep it running. Newgrounds was supposed to be a place where people without the ability to maintain their own website could create something and share it with others while other people could experience that content for free.

The "if you don't like it, make your own site" argument is a lot like the "if you don't like the laws, leave the country" argument. He may not have a rightful claim to ownership of this site, but he certainly contributed to it's survival and I think he and everyone else here has a right to say what they think about this.

If you don't like it, get off the thread which was posted specifically so people could discuss this openly. See what I did there?

I really hope this doesn't become a trend.

I think it's a shame.

What happened was a horrible tragidy and I in no way support it, guns, or the gloficiation of the events that occured. That being said, I also don't support censorship. We shouldn't be ashamed of the way we feel and we shoudln't be forced to hide our thoughts from society for fear of persecution from our neighbors. That's not what this country is about, and it's not what this website was about.

You start with racist and homophobic things... then you start pulling controversial games like this... where does it stop?

You'll try to say "well it was only the Sandyhook video"... but that's what you said when you pulled your first racist flash... "well, it was racist".

But look at the trend. We use to be able to say what we want, now you get banned from the forums for making an unfunny joke. You support bans and you supported censorship to the point that general is dead. You're pulling offensive flash games from the site, your caving into the pressure from society, etc... I think it's a clear sign that you've completely lost track of your original goal.

17 year old you, would hate the 30+ year old you.

I don't support it, but I don't think "pulling it from the site" is the right answer either. You could have just not promoted it... no front page, etc. You could have given it a special rating or something or buried it behind extra "are you sure you want to see this" message boxes. Anything... but to just straight up pull it, really sucks.

At 11/18/13 06:59 PM, RiuTenshin wrote: I really hope this doesn't become a trend.

They already removed Beat up Anita Sarkeesian.
Even though those types of games are the foundation for this place.
Slippery slope

(One thing I would like to preface before anyone reads this is there is a reason I don't typically respond to things, and that's my rambling (see, I'm already doing it), laying out my set-by-step process (if applicable, which it is here), and accidentally offending people, so be wary. Skip to the sixth paragraph (fuck me, I really need to learn how to condense my thoughts) to hear my opinion and skip my nonsense. And I apologize in advance for any offence, annoyance, and/or falling over dead from excessive explanations)

Now, I usually don't really respond to anything, I just read/watch something, gather my own opinions and move on. But in reading the responses I saw that there was a fairly small amount of people who have actually played, or had even seen the game. I just want there to be another opinion from someone who has actually played it. (That's not to say that the opinions of those who haven't played it don't matter, of course they do, I just prefer informed observations)

After reading Tom's post, then the responses, I went to see what was causing all the trouble. After a quick Google search, I found it and played through it.

A description of the game that's probably too long: You play as a tall, slender, black smudge walking around slowly, shooting the children and teachers (also silhouetted), leaving as little living as possible. The children will run, hide, play dead (some quivering), and even stand/sit paralyzed with fear. After 12 minutes or so the cops will come and and you will be forced to kill yourself (or you can kill yourself early if you so desire). There are also three different game modes: Historical, Gun Control, and Eagle Tears (unlocked in that order). You unlock each one by finishing the game (killing yourself) in each one. Historical I would hope is self-explanatory, in Gun Control you wield a Katana and slice-and-dice you victims, and finally, in Eagle Tears the teachers will all wield handguns and either try to kill you or kill the students themselves, in what I'm guessing, an attempt to side with you so you don't kill them (that is only speculation as I killed them before they were able to continue).

Now I have a fairly sadistic sense of humor and I have no personal connections with anyone involved in the incident, so I was able to play through this all three times without getting too terribly offended. Artistically the game is amazing, there is no question about that. And it's well made, and there are no signs of poor craftsmanship.

The message that this game portrays is one that I think only Tom and a few others (I only skimmed the comments following the third page, as they seemed to devolve into petty arguments about ad revenue) actually touched base on: gun control. The author of the game is 100% for gun control. On the credits & info screen, right in the center, he has a "Play Message From Creator" button. This plays an audio file of him expressing his motivation and reasons for making this game. He also goes on to talk about his stance on gun control laws. He makes it very clear that he is completely against liberation of guns. He even points out links he provided to "contact your state senator and representatives in congress", and the NRA gun legislation site. I don't know if this was ever brought up, by the ones who contacted Tom, or those of us who responded to this thread, but I do think it is important to recognize the creator's thoughts on his own game.

Now for my opinion (wow, didn't think I'd get this far). Tom, I think you did make the right choice. Hell, if I were in your shoes I would've done the exact same thing after the first e-mail. The one thing I would like clarified is how many actually listened to the creator's thought's and explanations. If everyone had heard it I think there is a very good chance that this game would still be online.

That is (finally) all.

Every post you have made so far has been void of any logic. I never told him to make his own site, so why are you bringing that up? Fucking learn to read.

Nice strawman though! It sucks that Newgrounds is filled with vapid cunts like yourself who think they know it all.

lol just ignore him he's just a troll.
Watched the news video and it was laughable, I loved the random interviews on the street lol..

At 11/18/13 06:55 PM, VirusN wrote:

So when are we getting the "remove this i find it offensive and want it removed, host it on your site" button?
I mean, some of the flash here are way more edgy and offensive than this one, and most of them don't even carry a message like this one.

The problem is that Newgrounds is liable to be sued or to receive bad press. Think of youtube and how many submissions it gets. If someone submits something innapropriate, it leaves them open for lawsuits either for copyright infringment or whatever other nonsense.
That means they have to implement an automatic user-driven system to take down offending material ( or at least flag it) before they can be accused of supporting it.

This also means that they will always err on the side of removing /banning more than necessary as there's really no financial detriment to it, so as long as enough people go on a flagging campaign, things get removed unfairly by the pussy army.

This is because youtube is a victim of its own size and success, and so is Newgrounds to a point.

Right now NG is small enough that Tom can still personally veto the more borderline cases but a day could come where he'd have no choice but to automate the system.

But by then he'd hopefully be a multi-millionaire so yah :p

At 11/18/13 07:04 PM, Zachary wrote: Nice strawman though!

Same to you friend!

At 11/18/13 06:30 PM, TomFulp wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:16 PM, Sammy589 wrote: What I don't understand, is why your stomach hurts so much to delete a flash game on your site about the Sandy Hook shooting, but you can stomach a flash movie about the Virginia Tech shooting. What's the key difference that moved your hand to remove one, and leave the other?

I was very uncomfortable with the V-Tech game but did feel the need to defend it because that's what NG does. I got tons of hatemail and we did get dropped by some remaining ad companies at the time. We haven't picked up new ones since which is why there feels like so little to lose nowadays.

I can't make any sort of good argument for why things were allowed in the past that aren't allowed now. If V-Tech had been an elementary school maybe we would have removed it back then. Are elementary school kids worth more than college kids? We send college-aged kids off to war so maybe that's part of the desensitization but really there is nothing I can say that feels like an sort of reasonable difference. Having kids is likely part of it but I hate to think that I'm only sensitive BECAUSE I now have kids... Maybe it's just been explored enough already where it doesn't feel like any new ground is being broken on Newgrounds with another school shooting game. PiGPEN himself tackled the topic with V-Tech.

Part of it is my own ego that I know my name is put on these things when they go bad, but it also puts a bad name on the rest of the NG community. 99.9% of the contributors here aren't making games about school shootings and they aren't especially thrilled to be associated with them, so it does go beyond how it makes me look.

So you toss all that in a pot and stir it up and out comes a decision that is different than last time things got tossed in the pot.

Do those people wish to be associated with people that make poorly designed rape simulators?

I get what you are saying, but it really doesn't change how jarring it is that "dominus, predator sim" is still up (I think) but this is taken down quickly because you got a call or because you might lose remaining advertisers or because the news might do a story.

Maybe the site would die, I don't think it would though. I think if it got that close to the danger zone, your army of loyal fanboys would be more than happy to donate some money to keep this site afloat.

People donated enough money to fund a robocop statue. If that doesn't inspire you, well that's probably a good thing because that's just really stupid to begin with, but it shows that people are willing to throw money to keep something they love alive and as a bonus, ad free.

Or maybe that would fail and this site would suddenly die or get sold to some company or maybe things will go like this and nobody will care that a cool game got removed for being offensive.

I think both sides are making this out to be much more than it really is. You made a choice, personally I think you made the easy and less respectable choice. If that matters to you in the slightest, maybe that's part of the problem that led to this situation.

At 11/18/13 06:54 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:53 PM, Rustygames wrote: You know, if it appears on my site I will include a message indicating that although the political point was well made, the use of real, tragic events was in poor taste and arguably unnecessary. That's me executing my right to free speech.

But you just said it will... now it's an if?

http://www.rustyarcade.com/games/play/2298/The-Slaying-of-Sandy-Hook-Elementary

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

At 11/18/13 07:08 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/18/13 07:06 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:56 PM, derelix wrote: The "if you don't like it, make your own site" argument is a lot like the "if you don't like the laws, leave the country" argument.

That'd be true if moving to another country was as simple as typing another URL into your address bar

Also, that's not even what I said. Rustyarcade runs his own gaming website. I never told him to make his own, I was simply asking him if he would host it on his site.

Too bad derelix lacks the intelligence to even read a single sentence.

And I'm the troll?

A thousand pardons your majesty, I don't know who "rustygames" is but I think my point still stands.

My argument isn't "void of any logic" you are just incapable of understanding logic. You're, what's the word? A moron.

I find your existence offensive. I demand that Tom remove you from this site or I will be forced to pull my funding.

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

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

Tom, take notes.

At 11/18/13 07:13 PM, Zero2562130 wrote:

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

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

Tom, take notes.

Bare in mind Tom takes a lot more pressure than me. Newgrounds has many, many more visitors than my little corner of the internet, and he has to deal with nasty press type people calling him up and trying to blame him. I understand why he's taken the "easier" option here, but I don't agree with it. Let's cut the man some slack, he's had more shit off these people than most of us will in a lifetime.

I just want to be able to continue admiring him as a man of integrity.

Honestly I'm disappointed in this decision. Newgrounds has always been a haven of freedom of speech no matter the cost, and while many of us might agree the flash was treading some bad territory, every step towards censorship is a step that cannot be taken back. Letting emotions dictate laws destroys the trust that we have that they will remain constant.

Well I played it, it's a shame he puts his talent to something like that when he could be making things that get a bigger audience. Removing it isn't a bad decision, sometimes you needa remove one game to keep the freedom of having future games., theres no point newgrounds taking so much flack for the stance of one game that is out to provoke.

At 11/18/13 07:04 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:56 PM, derelix wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:43 PM, Zachary wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:42 PM, Rustygames wrote:

Nice strawman though! It sucks that Newgrounds is filled with vapid cunts like yourself who think they know it all.

I don't think I "know it all" I am just sharing my opinion and joining into the debate just as you were, only difference is I back up my opinion with logic and you back up yours with baseless insults. I reserve the right to be wrong, but this is a matter of opinion and has no real right answer meaning the "you think you know everything" argument is pretty transparent and shallow. Save that one for when your trying to dispute the theory of evolution.

Wait, you called me a cunt? Look if you hate me for whatever reason, fine, but don't start bringing your woman hating bigotry to newgrounds, this place has standards.

Tom this person has offended me. My mother was a woman, she's dead now. Do you people have no respect for the dead? Remove his post at once.

At 11/18/13 06:05 PM, TomFulp wrote: When the topic of the creative community comes up, especially questions of whether they are appreciated, I have to remind everyone of the TWO NGs.

1) People who want to make and share cool stuff. Want to be able to make a living doing it.

2) People who want to make outrageous / adult stuff.

A lot of people in Group #1 say they want to come back and would prefer to be here. They just need better paying ads because they are trying to make a living with this. That isn't going to happen for as long as Group #2 exists on the site, even when we have the ability to filter ads based on content.

It has proven impossible to satisfy the needs of both these groups on one website. I would have to remove ALL of Group #2 to solve our ad revenue problem, because we are blacklisted by services used by ad buying agencies.

But to sum it up, there are two choices to make in the category of "caring about the artists:"

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

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

At 11/18/13 06:49 PM, poxpower wrote: I think the main problem is that people who make offensive things rarely make quality things so you're never stuck in the position of defending an AMAZING game or movie that just happens to be really offensive. Rather you have to defend some subpar / experimental work that's just made for shock value while people like Happy Harry or whoever apply their craft as best they can and spend months on a few minutes of cartoon...

So possibly, people just see it as not artistic expression or worthwhile commentary and just cheap attention-grabs aimed at cashing-in on tragedies ( especially given that NG pages have ads .... ).

Those two posts were enlightening for me.
At the start I thought NG is going to be more and more censored. That animations like Milkman would be restricted from being hosted in future.

But now I see I never enjoyed the content that was censored/removed. Because it was always just made to shock and only this. It wasn't of any quality. It was just a pure shock value. Like poxpower well said.

I feel wrong for changing my stance so quickly but I was very wrong. And a bit concerned about future of my dear NG.

From the post of Tom I would like to see the choice number two. The people who make outrageous stuff never made something I enjoyed.

I think in light of the circumstances you did the right thing. It's easy to use the 'free speech' card when you weren't involved in something tragic but I can only imagine what the parents are feeling. There's nothing wrong with taking a stance in something you firmly believe in, but there's also nothing wrong with being sensitive to someone's emotion. That was a very mature decision you made, and I think being a parent yourself has made you a little more empathetic to their plight.

However if what you say is true in how you felt about the game you pulled, I hope that should the opportunity for the game to return to this site comes up, you will let it stay. Again, I think it's very humbling and mature of you to take others' feelings into consideration, but you also have your own business and life.

Tom, I am curious if those who were bothering you about the game gave you some sort of ultimatum?

I see both sides, but great artists and creators would never be able to fully express themselves if we start taking things down because people complain. Sure, most of us agree with them being upset about it, but a lot of us on here would be upset if our creative work was taken down.

I agree with what you said about the actual production value of the game like the art and stuff, but I think they should've taken this up with the creator and not you/the website.

Must've been a very difficult situation for you, I can't say that I've ever had to deal with something like that before. That said, I still respect you and I will still continue to be part of the NG community. I hope that NG continues to be a place where all artists, musicians, and creators can freely express themselves.

In Star Trek terms, this is your "Kobiyashi Maru" - a no-win scenario. It's going to piss someone off, whatever you had decided.

IMHO I think it was appropriate, only because of the extreme sensitivity and timing of the issue. Usually, my view is this: unless the flash is stolen, racist, hateful or in direct violation of Newgrounds policies, it has a right to be submitted, voted upon, and kept if accepted by the general populous.

I also am not one to bow to any groups singular desires if it abridges the first amendment rights of anyone else. To paraphrase Voltaire, "I disagree totally with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But sometimes just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it won't cause more grief than good. You can expect that, as it's impossible to please all the people all the time. In this case, the flash, although it certainly did show some effort, was a very hurtful reminder of the loss of many children at the hands of a crazed gunman.

In this rare case, removing the flash was not so much a matter of censorship, but a matter of respect for the young children who perished and the pain their families still feel. It wasn't removed for religious views or corporate sponsorship or a politically-correct group trying to control the media.

It was Tom's way of saying "I will do this out of the respect for the children killed that day", and nothing more - or nothing less. It's not a sign of weakness to show compassion for others, and I doubt this single instance will cause Newgrounds to come to a grinding halt. If I know Tom, he's still going to be tough on rule-breaking entries, and let the others be.

Yes, Tom, it was a tough call, but you did the right thing. It shows that you do care about something besides yourself. You have my full support, and as always, I think you're doing a great job at the helm.

Keep up the good work - it's not easy being the boss!

At 11/18/13 07:06 PM, Entice wrote:

At 11/18/13 06:56 PM, derelix wrote: The "if you don't like it, make your own site" argument is a lot like the "if you don't like the laws, leave the country" argument.

That'd be true if moving to another country was as simple as typing another URL into your address bar

That's not really how you create or maintain a site though, you realize that right?

If your saying we could go to another site to play the game, yeah no kidding, nobody is disputing that, but that has nothing to do with the comment you replied too.

Thanks for playing, please don't breed.

This topic has gotten 340 responses in about 7 hours. That's almost one every minute... For seven hours straight.

We sure do have an active community, don't we?

Anyway, I won't go into detail and write an essay on censorship, I think there's enough of them on here as it is. I respect your decision, as do I respect the opinions of others here.

I have not played the game and probably never will.

You should delete Pico's School

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.

A few things from me: Tom you have my sympathies. This was not an easy call and I feel that given the circumstances you made the call you felt would serve NG best and all I can say is that I respect you for it. However, saying that I agree with some people on here that censorship is a slippery slope. Artists need to know that they can make parodies, express themselves, and use their chosen mediums to inform, entertain, culture, and stimulate their audiences without the threat of having a boot heel pressed to their throats. Then you have the argument about taste and decency. Could this game's message have been delivered in a different way? Most certainly and I personally find it absolutely idiotic that he would push a gun control campaign via the Sandy Hook incident and by putting us in the shoes of the shooter. It's disrespectful to the victims' families, damaging to his own cause because now no site will ever put his game up. There's a point where you make something so you can be heard and then you make something so you can be loud and that's what I think happened here. The creator made something purely for attention and wrapped it up in a political message people could get behind so he wouldn't become a target otherwise why make it the way he did? There's no reason to. Anyway, Tom you've dug your foxhole now you must hold it. While some might say you made a bad choice because you let a group push you to censorship, and others say you did the right thing by taking down a tasteless, shallow game I will say this to you: You have made your decision. You've set a precedent. It will be used against you. Continue to manage the site as YOU see fit. Don't let others dictate how this home you've built for us should be run. Keep New Grounds a place I want to keep coming back to, a place where artists like Johnny Utah, Sexual Lobster, Egorapter, and many more will keep coming back to.

When it comes to censorship I think that the more something is censored the more people obsess about it and the more distorted and popular it becomes. By leaving it up and ignoring it you take it's power away. I'm a firm believer in people viewing what they want and ignoring what they don't want. That's America, and that's what separates us from the other countries in this world. But then again Newgrounds is not a democracy. I've been here for a very long time and how many of my honest reviews remain? So censorship is nothing new to this site.

At 11/18/13 06:05 PM, TomFulp wrote: When the topic of the creative community comes up, especially questions of whether they are appreciated, I have to remind everyone of the TWO NGs.

1) People who want to make and share cool stuff. Want to be able to make a living doing it.

2) People who want to make outrageous / adult stuff.

But to sum it up, there are two choices to make in the category of "caring about the artists:"

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

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

Now, for sure when I say this I am only think about my own needs or wants but I would really hate it if you ever cut off group 2... especially since I can be placed in group 2. Newgrounds is honestly the best place for an adult artist who would like to make a living off of it. Newgrounds offers something that no other site offers, a large audience. All other sites such as Hentai-Foundary and Furaffinity welcome adult artists, obviously, but when it comes to the resources that Newgrounds provides to it's users those websites are hopelessly underwhelming. Even though over the years Newgrounds has become increasingly more unfriendly to group 2 there is no better place to post your stuff in my opinion.

Newgrounds is dead.

Mixed feelings. If you want to stay true to the community you don't remove the game. I often despise You-tube for having enough power (both financial and PR) to stand-up to ads companies and not doing that because "we are too greedy". However NG is not YT. NG tend to have worse times. I understand the decision but we can't allow NG to become hostage to what someone finds suitable or not. Once something is rated M if someone gets shocked the problem do not lays in content - the problem is person who views the game. Hopefully this is the first and last time the situation like this occurs (probably not). In future the last word should belong to the people of NG.

At 11/18/13 07:22 PM, Eggy wrote: Well I played it, it's a shame he puts his talent to something like that when he could be making things that get a bigger audience. Removing it isn't a bad decision, sometimes you needa remove one game to keep the freedom of having future games., theres no point newgrounds taking so much flack for the stance of one game that is out to provoke.

Yes it's sad that he did something that people found offensive rather than going for something that would give him mass appeal.

Yeah the game was just "out to provoke" just like every other person that tries to create something that people disagree with.

This is really sad to see as the common consensus on Newgrounds of all places. Don't make anyone angry or offended, only make content that is designed to appeal to as many people as possible.

Was grand theft auto only created to provoke?

Is sex only done to provoke?

Is anti establishment alternative media only out to provoke?

If somebody creates something you find offensive, it was only done to provoke. Nevermind that movies about tragedies are made and are viciously defended by people that claim "if you don't like the movie, it's because you have no respect for the victims" but somehow it's reversed just because it's a "game" and not a movie.

You know what, I change my stance, I agree with the removal. The newgrounds community clearly wants a nice cheery innocent atmosphere to escape and hide from reality, let them have it. I think you should remove the adult section (as well as any content in the adult section) and as a bonus that should mean a lot less to maintain on the site.

I mean it seems pretty hypocritical to continue making money off of rape and torture simulators on this site but not a shooting game.

I completely disagree with your decision.

I believe that freedom from censorship is one of the pillars that Newgrounds was founded on. The idea that you're free to create whatever you want and then have it put up on the chopping block to be obliterated or praised. This freedom is refreshing in a world where the majority of companies are backed by corporations or investors who would never risk such freedom because it would hurt their profit margins.

Violating the policy on such a controversial game sets a dark precedent.

Yet, despite how strongly I disagree with your decision, I have not lost any respect for you. This was not an easy decision. There was no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Or, at least, it was not so clear-cut. You openly admit to your decision rather than sweep it under the rug, and you acknowledge the other side rather than pretend your answer was the only one.

That requires a lot of integrity. More integrity than most people are capable of.