Discrinimation by an value/opinion > VioIet

[JelleR]

there we go truth is out

And? You act like its all solved now. People are not allowed to like porn? Where are you going with this? Can they like sex? Uptight is a word that comes to mind here.

Again, I dont even have a personal interest here but it bothers me when people restrict the freedom of other people when there is no basis for this at all. The avatar is allowed, therefor he can play the tournament according to the rules of the site. That is all that is important. Violet should take it up with the siteowner if she feels violated and not make Pascalleke the victim.

[JelleR]

Another thought: if you are man (or in this case woman) enough to refuse a player to play in your tournament for reasons that are not consensus, you should step up and plead your own case. Not have others do it for you.

[barterer2002]

The previous standard, as communicated to TOs throughout CC history has been that TOs can exclude players for whatever reason. Owen, Natty etc may not like this but that's what had previously been communicated to the TOs. Now, Lindax says this isn't the case which is a clear change in CC policy which should be communicated to the TOs and not hidden over here in a GD thread of course but I'd like to know where the standard is?

1. Can we exclude dead beaters? (most would say OK here I think)

2. Can we exclude our own foe list?

3. Can we exclude people who are joining just to cause trouble? (I have excluded one player once who I was in the middle of an argument with and who tried to join one of my tournaments for what I believed to be troublemaking purposes (either deadbeating or simply not joining-mostly to be a pain in the ass for the TO)

4. Can we exclude those we find annoying? Optimus Prime used to exclude Blitz from his tournaments for this reason.

5. Can we exclude those who consistently berate others in game chat? It may be allowed in CC but part of the duty of a TO is to provide an enjoyable experience for players?

6. Can we exclude those with offensive names and/or avatars? Which is the crux of this particular complaint of course and there are potential reasons to do so since the avatars are going to be seen in the tournament threads and the names will be in games.

7. can we exclude people for having Ginger colored hair?

It sounds like the line is somewhere between 5 and 5. But really where is the line Lindax? Are TOs obligated to take every player who isn't on their foe list and should this mean that as a TO I need to work at increasing my own foe list just so I could exclude people? I'd have a perfectly valid reason for putting someone on foe of course but I dont use it much as things usually aren't that big a deal.

[pascalleke]

there we go truth is out

And? You act like its all solved now. People are not allowed to like porn? Where are you going with this? Can they like sex? Uptight is a word that comes to mind here.

Again, I dont even have a personal interest here but it bothers me when people restrict the freedom of other people when there is no basis for this at all. The avatar is allowed, therefor he can play the tournament according to the rules of the site. That is all that is important. Violet should take it up with the siteowner if she feels violated and not make Pascalleke the victim.

problem with him is ...how do u call it ....being a homofobic

[squishyg]

pascalleke, what are you looking for in this conversation at this point? i find this debate interesting and important, however I'm wary of your motives. your tone over the last few pages has grown mocking and dismissive of those who don't agree with you.

[pascalleke]

pascalleke, what are you looking for in this conversation at this point? i find this debate interesting and important, however I'm wary of your motives. your tone over the last few pages has grown mocking and dismissive of those who don't agree with you.

lol sorry if my words went something kinda wrong way .....but why u only tap in my fingers ...maybee u must tap not only mine? but ur collegue too?

or do u agree his words here? there is no smoke without fire u must realize this ...

or do u find it correct of a CC volunteer he just is trying to push my button by stating something wich is clearly not thrue?? maybee u can react on that also ???

[pascalleke]

The previous standard, as communicated to TOs throughout CC history has been that TOs can exclude players for whatever reason. Owen, Natty etc may not like this but that's what had previously been communicated to the TOs. Now, Lindax says this isn't the case which is a clear change in CC policy which should be communicated to the TOs and not hidden over here in a GD thread of course but I'd like to know where the standard is?

1. Can we exclude dead beaters? (most would say OK here I think)

2. Can we exclude our own foe list?

3. Can we exclude people who are joining just to cause trouble? (I have excluded one player once who I was in the middle of an argument with and who tried to join one of my tournaments for what I believed to be troublemaking purposes (either deadbeating or simply not joining-mostly to be a pain in the ass for the TO)

4. Can we exclude those we find annoying? Optimus Prime used to exclude Blitz from his tournaments for this reason.

5. Can we exclude those who consistently berate others in game chat? It may be allowed in CC but part of the duty of a TO is to provide an enjoyable experience for players?

6. Can we exclude those with offensive names and/or avatars? Which is the crux of this particular complaint of course and there are potential reasons to do so since the avatars are going to be seen in the tournament threads and the names will be in games.

7. can we exclude people for having Ginger colored hair?

It sounds like the line is somewhere between 5 and 5. But really where is the line Lindax? Are TOs obligated to take every player who isn't on their foe list and should this mean that as a TO I need to work at increasing my own foe list just so I could exclude people? I'd have a perfectly valid reason for putting someone on foe of course but I dont use it much as things usually aren't that big a deal.

but agreed....lets discuss more on this .............

[squishyg]

i find your avatar (as well as others) to be in poor taste, but I do not support anyone blocking you from a tournament because of it. general stoneham's name has been evoked in this discussion. i deeply disliked his avatar and after getting to know him on site, i decided to have a conversation about it with him. i would like to see players follow this path more frequently. sometimes context is everything, for better or for worse. and sometimes its good for two people to just hear each other out.

i'm very interested in the conversation about tournament exclusivity. i do think TO's have the right and the responsibility to vet players so that tournaments are run smoothly. given the quantity of tournaments, i also don't think there's harm in tournaments being open to players in specific demographics (score/rank/rating/nationality/gender), especially if they feed into a larger, more inclusive tournament.

TO's also have the responsibility of putting aside personal opinions when organizing a tournament. for example, one may not like a player because of the comments they post in off-topics (or the avatar they have), but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get to play. however, if a player and a TO do not work well together, and know that about each other. i don't think a TO should be forced to allow that player into their tournament.

TO's are leaders in the CC community. they should get to know players and work through conflict.

[owenshooter]

i feel this may have been lost in the flurry of posts... Lindax weighed in, and it was enlightening...-the black jesus

----
There are no written rules about this issue and we, the Tournament Directors look at it on a case-by-case basis and then only if abuse is suspected or if a player, who was denied entry in a tournament, complains. Since this does not come up often, we don't plan on coming up with a whole set of written rules any time soon.

I can give a few pointers and answer some questions though:

• Contrary to what some people seem to think: TOs cannot exclude people from their tournament for any reason they like.
  
• Let's just say that there has to be a valid reason. I realize that that can be subjective, but denying entry in a tournament to a player because the TO does not like the player's avatar, username, signature, etc., is not considered a valid reason.
  
• If a TO thinks an avatar (for example) does not follow the guidelines of Conquer Club he/she can report that through the proper channels.
  
• Using the foe list as a tool to deny players entry in your tournament is not acceptable. You cannot add a player to your foe list with the purpose of excluding that player from your tournament. In other words, there has to be another reason that the player is on your foe list.
  
• A TO can use prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament, as long as they are not overly exclusive. I'm talking about setting a point minimum or a minimum rating for example.
  
• If a TO posts in his tournament thread: "I reserve the right to deny entry to this tournament to any player", it doesn't mean that he/she can actually do that without a good reason.

If you think you were denied entry unfairly by a TO, or a TO has prerequisites for entering in his/her tournament that seem overly exclusive, feel free to file a complaint to the Tournament Department. As mentioned above, we will look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I hope this clears up things a little.

Lx

[InsomniaRed]

7. can we exclude people for having Ginger colored hair?

[squishyg]

owen, I assure you I read every post. I think this is an important, potentially precedent-setting conversation. is it fair to assume you would like to see a written out, official set of TO rules?

[Woodruff]

I think that is a false equivalency. Violet was defending dignity, trying to advance the principle of respect. That is a form of intolerance, but one that is not comparable to the intolerance of racism or sexism which is designed to embarrass, degrade, or ridicule.

I didn't bring up racism or sexism. It is not a false equivalency. Violet clearly was being intolerant, which makes Robinette's statement quite ironic.

Really, red, then you obviously don't know where the second one comes from originally.

Where it came from is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the avatar itself.

pascalleke can tell you if he wants to reveal personal information about where he surfs

well i got it from a avatar site ...nothing more or less...maybee u spend to much time urself at some sites u presume i have been at?


Thanks for the big smile

as i said before u say nothing with many words....u can only proof to me that u are the way u are ....

Notice no url reference.

All I'm noticing is a troll. A troll associated with the site's management. Fascinating item, that.

there we go truth is out

The truth that you go to porn sites? You're right...the truth is out.

[radiojake]

i have known of the avatar for a very long time as it is an av on another gamesite .......

but this is the first time i have heard that gif is degrading to women

please explain its background so we may understand

Well, did we really expect you to understand when you have an avatar like you do?


(*Disclaimer*: I fully acknowledge that I have not spoken to Violet about this issue so I can not definately claim this represents her stance)

I think many people in this thread seem to have completely mis-understood the context of Violet's boycott - I believe she was making a stance against the exploitative nature of the way our culture depicts women's bodies. Pascalleke's avatar depicts a woman with her fly undone and half of her breasts exposed, how is this avatar to be depicted as anything but a sexual object? Somewhere along the line, dignity and modesty has been incorrectly linked with prudishness, but this is a convienient ploy that continues the cycle of gender inequality and the false belief that dressing in a revealing way equals gender empancipation.

The title of this thread has been labelled 'Discrinimation (sic) by an (sic) value/opinion', which is absurd because pascalleke's avatar can not be considered a value or an opinion, it is nothing more than an excuse to stare at a semi-naked woman (There is no nipple, so that is ok, right?)

Basically, from what I can tell, Violet has correctly summarised that Pascalleke is a misogynist pig, who is devoid of knowledge of the complexities of gender equality and the perpetual exploitative nature that has been created since the rise of the porn culture. No one would have made a fuss if she had excluded someone with an avatar of a KKK member lynching someone (but hey, that is against the CC guidelines, so there is no problem). Just because CC (and our entire culture) has deemed misogyny acceptable, (see NSFW thread and/or any music clip on TV) doesn't make Violet's stance 'discriminatory'.

By the way, I am not saying that Pascalleke should not be able to have his vulgar and distasteful avatar (or Greenaoks, or General Stoneham) - I actually think people can put what they want - However, as a result, I would be totally in my rights from barring them from my tournament on the basis that they are misogynist pigs. (This is different from barring someone based on skin colour, gender, age, culture etc. Which are traits that people have no choice over - That is the crux of discrimination)


A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

[radiojake]

Another thought: if you are man (or in this case woman) enough to refuse a player to play in your tournament for reasons that are not consensus, you should step up and plead your own case. Not have others do it for you.

Violet did not start this thread - She made her case for exclusion in the original tournament thread, but it was not upheld by the site's management. She does not owe this conversation anything unless she decides to add her views.

[Woodruff]

A final word - Somehow there has also been a discussion about whether or not the kid with the blow-up doll is more 'offensive' - This is a pretty ridiculous comparison. Pascalleke's avatar perpetuates an image and idea that women are nothing more than sexual objects - The other avatar depicts a kid with a plastic blow up doll in what looks like a scene of comedic innocence. Completely un-comparable.

Yet that is simply only your opinion, and one with which I would strongly disagree. I certainly find the blow up doll avatar to be more offensive.

[pascalleke]

@radiojake : do u realize that some people have other opinions then urs? and u also must know that u dont know me , like u dont know the others wou claim to be misogynist pigs, so wo are u to judge or compare people this way?? For myself i respect ur opinion but realize u and others cant force them up to others and me ..and yess ur avatar seem more sick to me then a cute girl with a fly undown...u know that i did not even notice that bfr u brought this up?
Maybee because u liked it to much in ur hours of watching a "porn-like avatar" as u claim it to be?? >>>>>>> sick !?


@squishyg : pitty u dont seem even bothered to reply on the remark how u think about some reactions from some CC management at this topic....

is that not the best government ? Those wo can look at them selves in negative and postive actions and reactions??

[pascalleke]

owen, I assure you I read every post. I think this is an important, potentially precedent-setting conversation. is it fair to assume you would like to see a written out, official set of TO rules?

i dont know about owen but i guess i do and many more

[greenoaks]

i have known of the avatar for a very long time as it is an av on another gamesite .......

but this is the first time i have heard that gif is degrading to women

please explain its background so we may understand

Well, did we really expect you to understand when you have an avatar like you do?

what do you have against art ?

[radiojake]

@radiojake : do u realize that some people have other opinions then urs? and u also must know that u dont know me , like u dont know the others wou claim to be misogynist pigs, so wo are u to judge or compare people this way?? For myself i respect ur opinion but realize u and others cant force them up to others and me ..and yess ur avatar seem more sick to me then a cute girl with a fly undown...u know that i did not even notice that bfr u brought this up?
Maybee because u liked it to much in ur hours of watching a "porn-like avatar" as u claim it to be?? >>>>>>> sick !?

I have a little trouble understanding you - If English is not your first language then that is fair enough (you are Dutch, no?)

I know people have differing opions, obviously. I was not trying to force down anything upon you and I did say that I think you have the right to have any avatar that you want. I do think, however, that your poor choice of avatar, which lends me to equate you to a misognist pig with little or no understanding of what it means for women to be downgraded in such a way. As a result, I think Violet's call was fair enough if indeed she thought along the same lines.

But this is arbitrary now because CC have ruled it inoffensive, and therefore not a legitimate reason for exclusion. I do not see this changing at all while we are present within a culture that accepts misogyny.

[Woodruff]

But this is arbitrary now because CC have ruled it inoffensive, and therefore not a legitimate reason for exclusion. I do not see this changing at all while we are present within a culture that accepts misogyny.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means. Do you really mean to say that we are present within a culture that accepts the hatred of women?

[radiojake]

what do you have against art ?

Get your hand off it. Your avatar is no more a piece of art than a Windsor Smith billboard advertisement.

Two girls wearing underwear embracing each other in a provacative pose? That is designed to get your dick hard and nothing else - That is not art. Especially not when the girls have been photoshopped to enhance the perception of a 'perfect body image', which only perpetuates a dangerous image for other women and young girls that they are inferior if they do not look similar.

[pascalleke]

But this is arbitrary now because CC have ruled it inoffensive, and therefore not a legitimate reason for exclusion. I do not see this changing at all while we are present within a culture that accepts misogyny.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means. Do you really mean to say that we are present within a culture that accepts the hatred of women?

thanks did not know what misogny really ment...so if i state this right ...a cute girl on avatar is a sign of hating woman?
@ radiojake yess i am dutch so i am doing my best ...would me more easier for me if i could type all in dutch

[pascalleke]

what do you have against art ?

Get your hand off it. Your avatar is no more a piece of art than a Windsor Smith billboard advertisement.

Two girls wearing underwear embracing each other in a provacative pose? That is designed to get your dick hard and nothing else - That is not art. Especially not when the girls have been photoshopped to enhance the perception of a 'perfect body image', which only perpetuates a dangerous image for other women and young girls that they are inferior if they do not look similar.

According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer......some people would claim otherwise...sorry man

[squishyg]

But this is arbitrary now because CC have ruled it inoffensive, and therefore not a legitimate reason for exclusion. I do not see this changing at all while we are present within a culture that accepts misogyny.

You keep using that word, but I don't think you understand what it means. Do you really mean to say that we are present within a culture that accepts the hatred of women?

"The term misogynist is frequently used in a looser sense as a term of derision to describe anyone who holds a distasteful view about women as a group. Therefore, someone like Schopenhauer who proposes naturalistic reasons for various behaviors common to women is often regarded as a misogynist. As another, particularly striking example, man who is considered by many including himself to be "a great lover of women," is often regarded as being misogynist. Examples of this type of man would be Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan, who were both reputed for their many libertine affairs with women.

In feminist theory, misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist's attitude towards each individual woman. The fact that someone holds misogynist views may not prevent him or her from having positive relationships with some women"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Feminist_theory

[squishyg]

@squishyg : pitty u dont seem even bothered to reply on the remark how u think about some reactions from some CC management at this topic....

Your avatar falls with the guidelines and Team CC volunteers have noted this. I agree that your avatar falls within the guidelines