[xg:m]vexx - Team Fortress 2

[Forest 309]

It doesn't matter what the content is; whether it be ponies, furries, anime or whatever. If it's depicting content that shouldn't be seen by kids then that shit shouldn't be allowed on the Servers :Old Man:

 

Anthropomorphic, scantily-clad things with their legs spread apart is just as inappropriate as the depiction of a typical scantily-clad person doing the same damn thing, both are not PG- 13. Look at it this way: you wouldn't have that sort of content made publicly viewable in Grade school (Elementary school), so that very same thing shouldn't be allowed on Servers.

 

To be perfectly honest, I think the rule itself is dumb. I honestly think it should only cover graphic nudity, racist content, and derogatory terms (the ones we typically warn against) among other things.

[Maso 0]

It also doesn't give you the right to disrespect and threaten a staff member. If you're gonna make an abuse thread go ahead and do it. Don't use it as a threat.

 

[attach=full]24048[/attach]

I am so done with this thread. it was nice knowing you all.

 

I already apologized to him for being disrespectful. By the logic of the latter, then staff members shouldn't threaten to kick people. If a staff member is going to kick somebody, they should just go ahead and kick them... right? This has nothing to do with you Tom, but if you are going to bring it up, fine. To paraphrase, I told Vexx if he's going to continue to allow "notmyspray.jpg", I will continue to use my spray and that I would get "reporty" on the forums if I got kicked for using it. I even told Vexx before hand why I thought notmyspray.jpg was inappropriate and while he somewhat agreed, his consultants said notmyspray.jpg was still allowed, and mine wasn't. To paraphrase, he said "you are going to report me even after I talked with other mods?" I straight up told him yes, and to "try me". I gave Vexx a stern warning that if I got kicked for using my spray, I would take action.

 

I did everything I could to stop this report by discussing my issue first, but I was clearly being mobbed by multiple bias opinions.

[Vector 138]

By the logic of the latter, then staff members shouldn't threaten to kick people.

Mods have every excuse to WARN people of negative activity. Vexx was doing his job because he didn't think your spray was appropriate. You THREATENED him with a report if he didn't allow you to post something he thinks was against the rules.

If a staff member is going to kick somebody, they should just go ahead and kick them... right?

xG has rules and regulations on how to stop people from breaking rules but also give them a chance to stop what they are doing. Your logic is that people should be punished before given the opportunity to fix their mistake. If they continue after their warning thus a kick is warranted.

This has nothing to do with you Tom, but if you are going to bring it up, fine.

First of all my name is Vector, second, you made a community forum post to give the COMMUNITY their input on whether what vexx did was wrong or not. I have every right to give my opinion on the subject at hand you have zero right telling anyone who can and who cannot post.

I told Vexx if he's going to continue to allow "notmyspray.jpg", I will continue to use my spray and that I would get "reporty" on the forums if I got kicked for using it.

So you threatened him? You threatened an admin who felt your spray was inappropriate? If anything you should of been punished for doing such a thing. You confirmed what i said before, you threatened a staff member.

To paraphrase, he said "you are going to report me even after I talked with other mods?"

So after other mods said what he did was correct you continued to be difficult? I seriously have no idea how you can think you are in the right.

[Maso 0]

So if user warn a staff member about something they think is wrong, its called a threat, but if a staff member warns a user about something they think is wrong, it's call a warning. That is called a double standard and staff members should follow the same rules as users. The spray that Vexx was allowing violates the rules, period. Vexx was in the wrong by allowing it and I was warning him that I would take action, just as he was warning me that I would be kicked. Technically we were with in the wrong and we both apologized for our actions. And yes, you do have the right to post whatever you want on this public forums, that's fine. I was calling you by your IGN and I never said you didn't have the right to post your opinion. I inconspicuously accused of throwing fuel on the flame of this discussion.

[Vector 138]

So if user warn a staff member about something they think is wrong, its called a threat, but if a staff member warns a user about something they think is wrong, it's call a warning. That is called a double standard and staff members should follow the same rules as users

But he wasn't wrong, Vexx was completely in the right here and you antagonized the situation by saying your going to go to another spray that can be classified just as inappropriate. He WARNED you to stop something that was against the rules, you THREATENED to report him if you were punished. That is the difference. It would be the same in the reverse situation, if Vexx had the inappropriate spray and you said change the spray or i will report you to the forums, that is a warning. I'm sorry if you don't understand the difference.

The spray that Vexx was allowing violates the rules, period. Vexx was in the wrong by allowing it and I was warning him that I would take action, just as he was warning me that I would be kicked.

It's up to the discretion of the admin nothing is completely cut and dry and i personally believe that the anime picture is fine because it isn't as explicit as the pony one.

[Maso 0]

i personally believe that the anime picture is fine because it isn't as explicit as the pony one.

 

And that was the fundamental disagreement between Vexx, other staff members, other users, and myself. You believe the anime image is fine, but there are plenty of other users who would be disgusted to see it on a 13+ server. It shows the outline of female genitalia.

[Forest 309]

And that was the fundamental disagreement between Vexx, other staff members, other users, and myself. You believe the anime image is fine, but there are plenty of other users who would be disgusted to see it on a 13+ server. It shows the outline of female genitalia.

@Vector the point being made here is that it's bias to determine that only one spray as inappropriate while the other is just as inappropriate, given the fact that the rule explicitly states that sprays must be PG- 13. While Staff may have the final say on the matter, this doesn't/shouldn't entitle Staff to say something is inappropriate just because they personally find it inappropriate.

 

The reason this whole thing is being blown out of proportion is that the rule is coming off in an incredibly subjective matter. Maso has the complete right to protest this as it's apparent that [some] Staff are selectively isolating groups of people by censoring their sprays just because they disagree with it (IE. Furries/Bronies/etc) even though another spray is just as inappropriate as another spray under the "PG- 13" rule. Keep in mind that I'm not saying they're in the same category of "sexualized" content so much as I am saying that they are both against the rule to begin with.

 

That being said, it's all out of order because, technically speaking, it's next to impossible to moderate "PG- 13" content in a game. It's a 'rating' that caters to cinematography, something that gives fair warning to parents/guardians who bring their kids to watch a movie. Obviously, no one here is a legal guardian of one of the [many] players who play on the Servers; and because we have a diverse group of Staff, opinions and values will differ which will result in segregation and isolation of players.

 

I won't repeat what I have already said (found here and here), but this thread is completely justified and I see no issue with this being discussed seeing as both Maso and Vexx have come to a civil understanding.

[Bone 364]

@Vector the point being made here is that it's bias to determine that only one spray as inappropriate while the other is just as inappropriate, given the fact that the rule explicitly states that sprays must be PG- 13. While Staff may have the final say on the matter, this doesn't/shouldn't entitle Staff to say something is inappropriate just because they personally find it inappropriate.

 

The reason this whole thing is being blown out of proportion is that the rule is coming off in an incredibly subjective matter. Maso has the complete right to protest this as it's apparent that [some] Staff are selectively isolating groups of people by censoring their sprays just because they disagree with it (IE. Furries/Bronies/etc) even though another spray is just as inappropriate as another spray under the "PG- 13" rule. Keep in mind that I'm not saying they're in the same category of "sexualized" content so much as I am saying that they are both against the rule to begin with.

 

That being said, it's all out of order because, technically speaking, it's next to impossible to moderate "PG- 13" content in a game. It's a 'rating' that caters to cinematography, something that gives fair warning to parents/guardians who bring their kids to watch a movie. Obviously, no one here is a legal guardian of one of the [many] players who play on the Servers; and because we have a diverse group of Staff, opinions and values will differ which will result in segregation and isolation of players.

 

I won't repeat what I have already said (found here and here), but this thread is completely justified and I see no issue with this being discussed seeing as both Maso and Vexx have come to a civil understanding.

 

Honestly, I feel the rule needs to be updated to be a bit more specific. Gray areas like that can make it rough for a person to moderate a certain rule. In fact, the other day I asked a guy to remove his spray on the Pokemon server that contained nudity. He said he'd been using it forever and no staff told him it wasn't allowed, and there's constantly staff on Pokemon. I just feel like people could attempt to use the "PG-13" rule as a way to loophole something, as someone could spray something that could be against the rules and respond with "Ayy, it's PG-13". Then threads like this begin again

 

Oh and the rule currently contradicts itself. PG-13 movies can contain nudity. So it's saying "It can contain nudity, but no nudity"

Maybe the rule should be changed to "Sprays cannot contain: Sexually suggestive material, Nudity, Racism..." you get the idea

[Maso 0]

Oh and the rule currently contradicts itself. PG-13 movies can contain nudity. So it's saying "It can contain nudity, but no nudity"

Maybe the rule should be changed to "Sprays cannot contain: Sexually suggestive material, Nudity, Racism..." you get the idea

 

I recently had a confrontation with a few staff members about topless men vs topless women. I was met with hostility when trying to justify why topless women sprays (non-sexually suggestive) should be allowed on xG (IE 2 women standing harmlessly on a topless beach). I personally thought it was a bit sexist for topless men be allowed and topless women to be banned. In that situation, I accepted the decision of the staff members and eventually dropped the conversation. I only bring this up again because you are right. PG-13 movies have brief nudity (non-sexually suggestive topless men and topless women).

[xGShadowSpy 108]

I recently had a confrontation with a few staff members about topless men vs topless women. I was met with hostility when trying to justify why topless women sprays (non-sexually suggestive) should be allowed on xG (IE 2 women standing harmlessly on a topless beach). I personally thought it was a bit sexist for topless men be allowed and topless women to be banned. In that situation, I accepted the decision of the staff members and eventually dropped the conversation. I only bring this up again because you are right. PG-13 movies have brief nudity (non-sexually suggestive topless men and topless women).

You see, in a logical point of view, yes breasts are breasts, whether its a mans or a womans. BUT because female breasts have already been sexualized, so it's hard to undo that point of view. Therefore while it's not necessarily fair, it makes sense why it's like that. Most men who support those movements just want to see them. : /

 

And as far as the non-suggestive part, that will bring in a whole new argument on what is or is not suggestive.

[Moosty 148]

I recently had a confrontation with a few staff members about topless men vs topless women. I was met with hostility when trying to justify why topless women sprays (non-sexually suggestive) should be allowed on xG (IE 2 women standing harmlessly on a topless beach). I personally thought it was a bit sexist for topless men be allowed and topless women to be banned. In that situation, I accepted the decision of the staff members and eventually dropped the conversation. I only bring this up again because you are right. PG-13 movies have brief nudity (non-sexually suggestive topless men and topless women).

ya but were we to go for equality we would just ban topless men sprays it's safer and takes less effort

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

@Maso personally I think your spray is inappropriate due to the reasons @xGShadowSpy stated.

If i joined a server and saw two ponies wearing panties and spreading their legs, i wouldnt wanna see that shit.

However, since the rules are a little unclear about sprays, we should just change them to what @Forest said:

All sprays and avatars must be PG- 13 and cannot have nudity in them. This includes any spray that depicts sexual content, derogatory content, or anything else that may be deemed inappropriate by Staff."

 

Furthermore I'd like to give my personal opinion on this:

Baby ponies with spread legs are animals and much more inapprorpiate than anime girls.

I've also taken a look at the spray titled "notmyspray". If you use a picture as spray in games such as TF2, you lose quality (i.e it makes your spray look a little worse).

Call me a madman, but I can't see a camel toe:[spoiler=notmyspray in tf2]

 

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by Bello (see edit history)

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

After carefully discussing this subject with @Goblins we decided to make the rules about sprays more specific.

"All sprays cannot contain nudity or derogatory content. This includes any spray that depicts sexual content or anything else that may be deemed inappropriate by Staff."

 

No action will be taken against @Vexx.

 

-closed

Edited June 25, 2016 by Bello (see edit history)