CC is a joke because of the complete lack of respect.

[rdsrds2120]

Oh bother. All of the pokemon references in this thread by AoG...or the one anyway...remind me of...

[pearljamrox2]

I believe in men being big boys and not crying over little hurts that little boys do.

oh, kinda like you are doing right now




I do not believe in being an imbecile kid making a jackass out of himself to "prove a point".
oh, kinda like you are doing right now.

And like the time you pretended to quit CC, because someone dishonored you by having the audacity to report you may have done something a bit seedy in one of your games. I bet it made you feel all special when all those people wrote on your wall how sad it was that you were leaving and how you shouldn't let the bad people win by chasing you away. OH look, a few people have done that already in this thread. What a coincidence!





P.S The title of this thread is a little disrespectful towards CC. All of CC? Everyone and everything on CC is a joke? You should be more careful with your words.....you don't want to be a nothing ...now do ya? Well..anyway, don't forget the sunscreen.

[Army of GOD]

army of nobunaga sighting

[Crazyirishman]

If CC is something that you can have such a strong emotional attachment towards that people e-offend you with little pictures above their creative user names and sometimes hurtful words posted on thread in a forum that the vast majority of the population will never see or care about, that is a joke.

[Fircoal]

To get respect one must earn it first.

[jefjef]

Kissing ass isn't earning respect. It's just kissing ass.

To get respect one must stomp the ass kissers.

[Queen_Herpes]

but my avatar was not of jesus and AoG's was not of the buddha... however mine was deemed offensive and his was not... on a lighter note, if you have f*ck on an avatar and it makes certain C&A members laugh and you are a moderator, it is ok... you should be leaving for the hypocrisy, not for the perceived slight/disrespect of religious icons that is just not going on around here...-the black jesus

Owen the post in C&A concerning AoG's avatar was closed ONLY BECAUSE the OP was to lazy to even file the report. He copied and pasted. He wouldn't take the time to do the complaint correctly. I DID NOT make a ruling on the avatar.

I'm going to have to chuckle at the preceding quote from a member of the conquer club establishment. Multihunters regularly scan the site for multis. Multis are busted whether they were reported in C&A or not. "Multi busting is done behind closed doors," was the way it was described previously in the forums.

Now, in this situation, the alleged violator's avatar was "[not ruled upon.]" Are we to assume that the mods and admin only look at abuse that is PROPERLY reported in C&A? Come on. Are you faserious? Members gets busted regularly for violating posting rules and other such malfeasance without ANY report in C&A.

Please, please, please, do not fall back on the "he didn't fill out the form properly" bit. It is demeaning.

[ljex]

but my avatar was not of jesus and AoG's was not of the buddha... however mine was deemed offensive and his was not... on a lighter note, if you have f*ck on an avatar and it makes certain C&A members laugh and you are a moderator, it is ok... you should be leaving for the hypocrisy, not for the perceived slight/disrespect of religious icons that is just not going on around here...-the black jesus

Owen the post in C&A concerning AoG's avatar was closed ONLY BECAUSE the OP was to lazy to even file the report. He copied and pasted. He wouldn't take the time to do the complaint correctly. I DID NOT make a ruling on the avatar.

I'm going to have to chuckle at the preceding quote from a member of the conquer club establishment. Multihunters regularly scan the site for multis. Multis are busted whether they were reported in C&A or not. "Multi busting is done behind closed doors," was the way it was described previously in the forums.

Now, in this situation, the alleged violator's avatar was "[not ruled upon.]" Are we to assume that the mods and admin only look at abuse that is PROPERLY reported in C&A? Come on. Are you faserious? Members gets busted regularly for violating posting rules and other such malfeasance without ANY report in C&A.

Please, please, please, do not fall back on the "he didn't fill out the form properly" bit. It is demeaning.

Not by multi hunters...

[hairy potter]

To get respect one must earn it first.

deep, brah

[Scott-Land]

Owen in another bitchfest-- wow what a surprise! Someone call him black Jesus instead of just Jesus?

[Metsfanmax]

but my avatar was not of jesus and AoG's was not of the buddha... however mine was deemed offensive and his was not... on a lighter note, if you have f*ck on an avatar and it makes certain C&A members laugh and you are a moderator, it is ok... you should be leaving for the hypocrisy, not for the perceived slight/disrespect of religious icons that is just not going on around here...-the black jesus

Owen the post in C&A concerning AoG's avatar was closed ONLY BECAUSE the OP was to lazy to even file the report. He copied and pasted. He wouldn't take the time to do the complaint correctly. I DID NOT make a ruling on the avatar.

I'm going to have to chuckle at the preceding quote from a member of the conquer club establishment. Multihunters regularly scan the site for multis. Multis are busted whether they were reported in C&A or not. "Multi busting is done behind closed doors," was the way it was described previously in the forums.

Now, in this situation, the alleged violator's avatar was "[not ruled upon.]" Are we to assume that the mods and admin only look at abuse that is PROPERLY reported in C&A? Come on. Are you faserious? Members gets busted regularly for violating posting rules and other such malfeasance without ANY report in C&A.

Please, please, please, do not fall back on the "he didn't fill out the form properly" bit. It is demeaning.

Not at all. With avatars it's a much different story. Unless something is clearly a violation of the rules (i.e. explicit pornography), there's no reason to force someone to remove their avatar unless there's a serious complaint against it from the members. If no one actually is opposed to it, then there's no reason to look into it. If the OP in that thread couldn't even bother to fill out the form properly, the mods can't reasonably infer that it's a serious complaint.

[jefjef]

If the OP in that thread couldn't even bother to fill out the form properly, the mods can't reasonably infer that it's a serious complaint.

That dog don't hunt. There have been many rulings in C&A without a properly filled form. In light of the recent owen ruling ES, who I feel is one of the most fairest and non biased mods, should have went ahead and dealt with it and still also made his point to the OP. But thats all water under the bridge anyway.

[Metsfanmax]

If the OP in that thread couldn't even bother to fill out the form properly, the mods can't reasonably infer that it's a serious complaint.

That dog don't hunt. There have been many rulings in C&A without a properly filled form. In light of the recent owen ruling ES, who I feel is one of the most fairest and non biased mods, should have went ahead and dealt with it and still also made his point to the OP. But thats all water under the bridge anyway.

Again, missing the point. The point is that the only way the mods can know that the avatar violates the rules is if some people feel it is seriously offensive. They can't know it is if people won't even bother to fill out the form correctly. And if it's ambiguous and no one's seriously complaining about it, of course the mods aren't going to waste their time looking into it.

[stahrgazer]

If the OP in that thread couldn't even bother to fill out the form properly, the mods can't reasonably infer that it's a serious complaint.

That dog don't hunt. There have been many rulings in C&A without a properly filled form. In light of the recent owen ruling ES, who I feel is one of the most fairest and non biased mods, should have went ahead and dealt with it and still also made his point to the OP. But thats all water under the bridge anyway.

Again, missing the point. The point is that the only way the mods can know that the avatar violates the rules is if some people feel it is seriously offensive. They can't know it is if people won't even bother to fill out the form correctly. And if it's ambiguous and no one's seriously complaining about it, of course the mods aren't going to waste their time looking into it.

No, sorry, Mets, but closing a report that made it clear something was offensive because 'the form wasn't filled out," isn't the same as "mods couldn't tell it offended folks."

However...

NOT everyone believes in jesus; some even think it's an amusing story. Therefore, it's religious bias to not allow them to think a picture is "funny' that has the same word on it that someone else has on their "funny pic" just because the pic might or might not depict someone else's religious icon.

Cows are sacred, for example, in many parts of India. I don't see CC cracking down on the silly Cow sigs because it's offensive to some Hindu's religion...

So, it's bias.

And If owen or whomever posting any pic with an offensive word on it in order to antagonize a certain religious group, then yes, it's more offensive and more disrespectful. Otherwise, is really no more offensive than CC refusing to see that the word itself on any avatar; or that jokes about cows could be offensive to those of certain religious beliefs.

[AndyDufresne]

No body is perfect. Common sense should prevail. Insert similarly related cliche here.


--Andy

[40kguy]

who cares about respect?

[Army of GOD]

R-E-S PECT

Find out what it means to me

[MrBenn]

Mens rea. It's all about intent (and not the man's rear).

[trapyoung]

Mens rea

Nerd! Law joke! Nerd!

[Metsfanmax]

No, sorry, Mets, but closing a report that made it clear something was offensive because 'the form wasn't filled out," isn't the same as "mods couldn't tell it offended folks."

Don't bother responding to my posts if you're not actually going to respond to what I said.

However...

NOT everyone believes in jesus; some even think it's an amusing story. Therefore, it's religious bias to not allow them to think a picture is "funny' that has the same word on it that someone else has on their "funny pic" just because the pic might or might not depict someone else's religious icon.

Cows are sacred, for example, in many parts of India. I don't see CC cracking down on the silly Cow sigs because it's offensive to some Hindu's religion...

If some Hindu complains about the cow sigs, we'll talk then.

So, it's bias.

And If owen or whomever posting any pic with an offensive word on it in order to antagonize a certain religious group, then yes, it's more offensive and more disrespectful. Otherwise, is really no more offensive than CC refusing to see that the word itself on any avatar; or that jokes about cows could be offensive to those of certain religious beliefs.

No. The intent has to be irrelevant. The point is that someone who was unaware of the situation would just see "f*ck Jesus" on his avatar and may be offended. It's not just an arbitrary, abstract distinction - someone actually complained about owen's avatar.