Conquer Club

so this is where everybody has been all weekend...

have fun... carry on...



I'd rather kill some opponents in a classic escalating game...
and here is an image to represent that...
lurking just below the surface, i spring forward and fire off multiple rounds... hehehe

http://imhz.com/uploaded_images/kydex_h ... 777612.jpg

mnnn... does this image offend anyone?.. perhaps it could be my new avatar...

Robinette wrote:http://imhz.com/uploaded_images/kydex_holster_girl-777612.jpg
mnnn... does this image offend anyone?.. perhaps it could be my new avatar...

i believe i see a nipple, so it is "CC offensive"... sigh...-0

hope andy comes back soon... we could lay this baby to rest!!! still waiting for an answer...-0

owenshooter wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:In addition to common sense...the intent of use is also currently taken into account. If someone is going to deliberately be a troll, well that's just no good from the get go.


--Andy

but still, how does allowing black face play into common sense? is it because you have a majority of mods that are not black, and thus not sensitive to exactly WHAT black face is? i am just wondering. the ruling i got was a bit ridiculous. i have no problem with the ruling since i respect the decisions of the mods, even when i think they are wrong. i just want to understand how it falls under these "guidelines" you have posted." thank you.-0

p.s.-yes, it is possible to find a decision 100% wrong, and still be able to respect and adhere to it.

I unfortunately was never aware of the black-face avatar, or even if it is still around. You can bring things to the mods attention by posting in the Cheating and Abuse forum.


--Andy

hehee... that was quick andy.... well done...

Good suggestion.

Exactly what IS this "black face" we've been hearing about, I googled around but found nothing definite.

jiminski wrote:Blackface

So it's not so much a particular work of art as a form of imagery that was ingrained in culture. Right?

Oh why now that I read that, never mind...hardly offensive to anyone. Damn Owen, you are always complaining about nothing.

To the mods posting in here, are you posting CC views or your own personal views? Because I never know when a mod posts, if he/she is being a mod or expressing their own views.

AndyDufresne wrote:I unfortunately was never aware of the black-face avatar, or even if it is still around. You can bring things to the mods attention by posting in the Cheating and Abuse forum.


--Andy

i brought it to several mods attention by sending them the users name and asking why it was ok. i was told it was discussed and my concerns were not found to be valid, because the avatar in question was "art work." so, now instead of going directly to mods for an answer, i go to a seperate portion of the forum? um, ok... how about i just send you the guys username and you can go from there? i'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just trying to get an answer on something i've been asking for 3 weeks.-0

Frop wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:Now, JBRETTLIP obviously didn't care what my opinion was, but at least he was able to formulate an argument against my opinion. And more than that, he was able to look at it from another point of view. And you're never going to get anywhere with anyone if you don't at least try and have a discussion. And saying "it's offensive" isn't a discussion. It's a straight opinion with no substance.

Tell you what, Juan. Try pissing on statue in public and when the police come, explain why it's not offensive. Pissing on a symbol is considered offensive in virtually every culture.

You just repeated yourself. All you're saying is "it's offensive." Also, your example was not on par with my argument. It didn't make sense.

All you're saying is 'it didn't make sense'. Why didn't it make sense? Why wasn't his example up to par? Could you please provide arguments without repeating yourself?[/quote]
Because it wasn't on par with my argument.
I said "explain to me what is offensive about it?" His response was "pee on a statue in public." "It's offensive everywhere," but again.... Why???[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I fail to spot a question anywhere in your first quote. I can only see you stating opinion as fact. It's hardly worth arguing with you seeing that you're always right in your own perception of reality. Then again, as not to break the chain: 'Why?'[/quote]

I'm not sure what question you're asking about. But Ray Rider was responding to one? That question was the same I asked you.h
Also, it seems that you have taken offence to something that I said. I'm not trying to get personal or anything. I was being quiet serious. And you never did answer my question about why it's offensive to you. Serious.

I also agree with MPJH that blackface does in fact, SYMBOLIZE racism. It's almost impossible to seperate the two...

And MEDEFE's Avy made me laugh. Not-offensive, but again, lewd.

Everyone, get those bloody quote tags sorted out before you post. kthxbai

And thanks for the compliment Juan.

MeDeFe wrote:Everyone, get those bloody quote tags sorted out before you post. kthxbai

And thanks for the compliment Juan.

I thought I had it that time... sorry. It's kind of a skill, that I do not yet posess....

Juan_Bottom wrote:

MeDeFe wrote:Everyone, get those bloody quote tags sorted out before you post. kthxbai

And thanks for the compliment Juan.

I thought I had it that time... sorry. It's kind of a skill, that I do not yet posess....

I can't tell if you did that on purpose. Or not.

Fuc k the avatar rules.

owenshooter wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I unfortunately was never aware of the black-face avatar, or even if it is still around. You can bring things to the mods attention by posting in the Cheating and Abuse forum.


--Andy

i brought it to several mods attention by sending them the users name and asking why it was ok. i was told it was discussed and my concerns were not found to be valid, because the avatar in question was "art work." so, now instead of going directly to mods for an answer, i go to a seperate portion of the forum? um, ok... how about i just send you the guys username and you can go from there? i'm not trying to be difficult, i'm just trying to get an answer on something i've been asking for 3 weeks.-0

Staggering.

I am a supporter of the mods, but I a,amazed they responded to you Owen, in such a way about blackface. It is a known and accepted piece of work representing American racism. How a mod can respond that it is purely artwork is horrifying. Comanies have stopped using anything like this for decades now, because of the racist intent , yet some idiot here decides otherwise.

I am not surprised, this is the same group of people who are lead by a man who allows constant attacks on the Catholic religion, but sits shivering with worry should anyone mention the problems we are having with Muslims.

Fruitcake wrote:I am not surprised, this is the same group of people who are lead by a man who allows constant attacks on the Catholic religion, but sits shivering with worry should anyone mention the problems we are having with Muslims.

now, now, no personal attacks... this is meant to be a civil discussion. i have sent andy the users name in question, so he can explain to me how it falls under the common sense statute that he explained here. i think it was a BAD decision, but i RESPECT the decision, and am now merely looking for clarification. oddly enough, my presenting this issue to several mods, and it being discussed in the mod forum, is somehow less efficient than posting my issue in Cheats & Abuse.. that i don't understand either. oh well... not looking to name call or tear at the fabric of CC, just looking for a reasonable answer from an admin, as to why/how this avatar was deemed art work and non-offensive.-0

TFoote wrote:Fuc k the avatar rules.

exiles old avvy.

as far as i am concerned
as someone who has muslim origins

GO FOR IT!
furthermore
please join the battle against all organized religions

DAZMCFC wrote:

TFoote wrote:Fuc k the avatar rules.

exiles old avvy.

yeas ..most people think that is an apocalyptic flaming finger... in fact is was constructed by artist Leo Capuchin and depicts 'Gods Finger, Giving The Bird'. (It is commonly held to be a pastiche of Michelangelo's 'The Creation of Adam' .)

The extraordinary visual effect was created using a mix of fox Urine and Tundra Bean Geese vomit, lit from behind by a single light source. The light source was powered by the artists own generator which is run by the burning of baby echidna's. (concentrated in natural oils, they burn at very high temperatures)

The artist is largely illusive with regards the deeper meaning of his piece but it is considered to allude to the struggle between popular culture and the seeping advent of latter-day iconoclasts.
The use of 'endemic' animal excretion is thought to signify a purity of nature verses man and points to the dichotomy of culture and the spiritual order. (more carefully husbanded in early man)*
The choice of generator fuel causes a contradiction, as it is a non indigenous animal. Debate still rages; it may be that it is simply a facile pun on mans separation from his natural state juxtaposed against this egg-laying mammalian, thus bringing us back to the theme of 'The Bird'. It may simply be, 'just because he can!', which is rather a Capuchin catchphrase amongst the chattering classes.



*Capuchin has also been linked with various neo-fascist groups. This could equally promote the tundra bean goose as a domestic migratory bird; the fox as a call for intrinsic Russian guile.

TFoote wrote:Fuc k the avatar rules.

I concur.

owenshooter wrote:on that note, something to ease our eyeballs from another thread. all the ballbusters avatars at your fingertips for your enjoyment!!-0

I love how showing an almost completely nude female is fine as long as you cover up 3 small areas. Or that the same 2 areas on a female are "lewd" and "inapproriate" but on a man they're perfectly fine.


Seriously people, stop complaining about all this shit. Stop taking offense at digital pictures on a website! Stop taking offense so easily! Stop being hypocritical whiners who still think female nipples are WRONG AND IMMORAL or whatever the bleeding hell the words used are.

They're just images! They're not real, they do not show intent and they are should not be deleted or banned. If you're of the opinion that your little kid is not allowed to see female nipples then you can use adblock or a good pornfilter but what you really should do is seriously think about the way you raise your kid. Human bodies are not something to be shamed about. Neither are images or works of art which depict a thing you might hold dearly in a bad light evil. Why take offense at these things? Why bother with such a huge waste of time as being offended by a bunch of pictures?

Seriously, just get over it.

Ah well, f*ck it. As long as we're being all offended by pictures and teling others to take them down, anyone wanna go and PM twill to tell the Jesus Freaks that images of the death penalty are offense to us who are against it?