owenshooter [closed]

[Metsfanmax]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

[trapyoung]

Nope. I agree w/ jefjef. It's owenshooter getting punished for being owenshooter.

[jbrettlip]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

I know a lot of chicks in EL Paso that have fucked Jesus. He was a good looking guy in high school.

[stahrgazer]

[player]Calidrmr[/player]'s avatar is of a "giraffe" running and stumbling with the f*ck word. [player]Owenshooter[/player]'s avatar is of Jesus Christ with the f*ck word. These two are very different images. One is like a comedy thing while the other, I would even say, is the central figure of Christianity. How can we say that it is only a picture with an "f" word? If you want to carry a religious symbol as your avatar, I would advise that you take better care of it and avoid any hint of bashing it. If you belong to a different religion, a non-believer, an atheist, etc., try to respect one's religion then. The combination of the f*ck word and a picture of a religious symbol is simply inappropriate and it disrespects/ridicules what it represents. If you are protesting something, you are also flaming/baiting with this avatar. If you want to protest something, do it properly. If you really want to have that 'f' word on your avatar, replace it with a neutral, non-religious, or a non-flaming background instead. This current avatar is not acceptable.

Pm sent.

This is an odd ruling.

Hindus, for whom cows are sacred, could take offense to all sorts of "funny" cow images that are allowed on CC.
f*** Jesus is an accurate representation of a US-acknowledged religion called Satanism. Allowing a "respectful" cross that acknowledges Christianity, but disallowing something that acknowledges Satanism, is bigotry. Further, allowing the disrespect of the Hindu-sacred cow but not allowing the disrespect of the Christian-sacred cross, is bigotry.

I'm neither a Satanist nor a Hindu. I'm a person who's been told often enough that my dislike of the word f*** is my problem, that I should, "famo" and ignore the word I dislike.

Yet here we have an example of someone who's simply using the same word in a manner someone else dislikes, being sanctioned for it.

If the word itself isn't supposed to be a problem in avatars, even though some don't find it "funny," then it shouldn't be a problem in anyone's avatar, even if others don't find it "funny."

[Serbia]

I personally feel the ruling is spot on. Owen's use of it is intended to be baiting. And there is a difference in usage between calidrmr's and owen's avatars. If it were a picture of some random tree with the word f*ck on it, it would be acceptable. Using that particular word over a picture of a religious icon, such as Jesus, is simply not acceptable.

[General Mojo]

Did anyone expect anything different? The mods on this website have been out of control for more than a year now and have all but killed the forums....I guess they all get off on the power trip, regardless of how nonsensical, inconsistent, and discriminatory their actions are. Its pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[grifftron]

Did anyone expect anything different? The mods on this website have been out of control for more than a year now and have all but killed the forums....I guess they all get off on the power trip, regardless of how nonsensical, inconsistent, and discriminatory their actions are. Its pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Are you joking? This rule is as fair as can be. All he had to do was change his avatar, its not like he was banned.

-griff

[jbrettlip]

Did anyone expect anything different? The mods on this website have been out of control for more than a year now and have all but killed the forums....I guess they all get off on the power trip, regardless of how nonsensical, inconsistent, and discriminatory their actions are. Its pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Are you joking? This rule is as fair as can be. All he had to do was change his avatar, its not like he was banned.

-griff

I worship Rerun, or B.I.G. (I can't tell who your avatar is) so please remove it.

[drunkmonkey]

I worship Rerun, or B.I.G. (I can't tell who your avatar is) so please remove it.

Because you think all black people look alike, right? Someone start a new C&A thread, stat!

[grifftron]

Did anyone expect anything different? The mods on this website have been out of control for more than a year now and have all but killed the forums....I guess they all get off on the power trip, regardless of how nonsensical, inconsistent, and discriminatory their actions are. Its pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Are you joking? This rule is as fair as can be. All he had to do was change his avatar, its not like he was banned.

-griff

I worship Rerun, or B.I.G. (I can't tell who your avatar is) so please remove it.

Nice try, I didn't have an offensive word across the Notorious B.I.G's face tho bro. Try again.

Thank you me no sucky sucky

-griff

[lord voldemort]

yes mojo...us mods truly get off on the power trip of making owen change his avatar...really its why i get out of bed in the morning.

[trapyoung]

yes mojo...us mods truly get off on the power trip of making owen change his avatar...really its why i get out of bed in the morning.

[squishyg]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

[General Mojo]

yes mojo...us mods truly get off on the power trip of making owen change his avatar...really its why i get out of bed in the morning.

Well if would actually read my post you would realize i am referring not just to this ruling, but any number of the retarded, over-the-top censorship that you and your band of internet nerds have forced upon these forums. Its why the forums are utterly useless and not at all entertaining at this point.

But congrats, you sure showed all of us! Conquer club is a better place because you all keep our forums safe!

[anonymus]

i love jefjef

[Metsfanmax]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

So you're a mod and you think the mods are unfairly playing favorites?

You should resign in protest. Anything else is not a legitimate response.

[owenshooter]

Nice try, I didn't have an offensive word across the Notorious B.I.G's face tho bro. Try again.

Thank you me no sucky sucky

-griff

um, neither did i... f*ck is not considered offensive and is allowed on certain peoples avatars, just not others. a mod on CC has f*ck on her avatar, but because it is considered comical, it is allowed (this is a new ruling that was added to the past ruling that f*ck on ANY avatar was not offensive). anyway, i changed to a far less offensive avatar, *cough*..-the black jesus

[owenshooter]

Unfortunately, this is the worst ruling possible. Not from the sense of it being an inaccurate ruling, but rather from the sense of non-prejudiciality. What I'm referring to here is that the moderators SHOULD be making every effort to ensure that they are not seen as "above the law" or treated differently by other moderators due to their position. Not that I don't say that they should be making every effort to ensure that they AREN'T above the law...rather I am speaking of perceptions here.

Unfortunately, this ruling does the opposite.

King achilles has made a perfectly reasonable recognition here that these are two different situations (between Calidmr's and owenshooter's avatars). As reasonable as that distinction is, this ruling still gives the startling impression that there are two different "classes" involved here...the haves and the have nots, if you will...the TeamCC and the not-TeamCC.

I am not arguing against the ruling, but rather the impression that the ruling gives. I do without question believe that there would be more value to the site if these two instances were treated equally (despite the differences in situation), simply so as to NOT give the impression that moderators are allowed to be above the law.

Remember, moderators...perception CAN CREATE reality. And unfortunately, this perception existed before this ruling came down. I relaly think the moderators should reconsider, on those grounds.

[jbrettlip]

=D>

Unfortunately, this is the worst ruling possible. Not from the sense of it being an inaccurate ruling, but rather from the sense of non-prejudiciality. What I'm referring to here is that the moderators SHOULD be making every effort to ensure that they are not seen as "above the law" or treated differently by other moderators due to their position. Not that I don't say that they should be making every effort to ensure that they AREN'T above the law...rather I am speaking of perceptions here.

Unfortunately, this ruling does the opposite.

King achilles has made a perfectly reasonable recognition here that these are two different situations (between Calidmr's and owenshooter's avatars). As reasonable as that distinction is, this ruling still gives the startling impression that there are two different "classes" involved here...the haves and the have nots, if you will...the TeamCC and the not-TeamCC.

I am not arguing against the ruling, but rather the impression that the ruling gives. I do without question believe that there would be more value to the site if these two instances were treated equally (despite the differences in situation), simply so as to NOT give the impression that moderators are allowed to be above the law.

Remember, moderators...perception CAN CREATE reality. And unfortunately, this perception existed before this ruling came down. I relaly think the moderators should reconsider, on those grounds.

Gayest post ever....the Black Jesus using smilies? I am so ashamed.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

So you're a mod and you think the mods are unfairly playing favorites?
You should resign in protest. Anything else is not a legitimate response.

That doesn't really follow logically. I was in the military at a time when human rights abuses were being carried out. Should I have resigned in protest simply because I couldn't affect those instances, or should I remain in the military to hopefully show that those abuses were an example of the vast minority within the military rather than leaving the military TO those individuals to act as they please?

I would suggest that if I were to leave for that reason, I would be doing both myself and the military a tremendous disservice. Once I'm gone, I can no longer do the right thing as a military member.

[Metsfanmax]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

So you're a mod and you think the mods are unfairly playing favorites?
You should resign in protest. Anything else is not a legitimate response.

That doesn't really follow logically. I was in the military at a time when human rights abuses were being carried out. Should I have resigned in protest simply because I couldn't affect those instances, or should I remain in the military to hopefully show that those abuses were an example of the vast minority within the military rather than leaving the military TO those individuals to act as they please?

I would suggest that if I were to leave for that reason, I would be doing both myself and the military a tremendous disservice. Once I'm gone, I can no longer do the right thing as a military member.

Since you presumably had nothing to do with the human rights abuses in question, it really didn't matter at all whether you stayed there or not.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, you're the only one who sees this that way

The rest of us just see someone being punished for using an avatar that says "f*ck Jesus."

speak for yourself, clearly other posters in this thread do agree with Woody.

So you're a mod and you think the mods are unfairly playing favorites?
You should resign in protest. Anything else is not a legitimate response.

That doesn't really follow logically. I was in the military at a time when human rights abuses were being carried out. Should I have resigned in protest simply because I couldn't affect those instances, or should I remain in the military to hopefully show that those abuses were an example of the vast minority within the military rather than leaving the military TO those individuals to act as they please?

I would suggest that if I were to leave for that reason, I would be doing both myself and the military a tremendous disservice. Once I'm gone, I can no longer do the right thing as a military member.

Since you presumably had nothing to do with the human rights abuses in question, it really didn't matter at all whether you stayed there or not.

Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

[Metsfanmax]

Nor does squishyg have anything to do with the moderator abuses, to my knowledge.

Still, she feels as though this is a concerted effort by "the mods" to play favorites among themselves. If you object on principle to something structural in your organization, how can you legitimately still claim to be a member of the organization?

[army of nobunaga]

this is an odd ruling...

Unfortunately, this is the worst ruling possible. Not from the sense of it being an inaccurate ruling, but rather from the sense of non-prejudiciality. What I'm referring to here is that the moderators SHOULD be making every effort to ensure that they are not seen as "above the law" or treated differently by other moderators due to their position. Not that I don't say that they should be making every effort to ensure that they AREN'T above the law...rather I am speaking of perceptions here.

Unfortunately, this ruling does the opposite.

King achilles has made a perfectly reasonable recognition here that these are two different situations (between Calidmr's and owenshooter's avatars). As reasonable as that distinction is, this ruling still gives the startling impression that there are two different "classes" involved here...the haves and the have nots, if you will...the TeamCC and the not-TeamCC.

I am not arguing against the ruling, but rather the impression that the ruling gives. I do without question believe that there would be more value to the site if these two instances were treated equally (despite the differences in situation), simply so as to NOT give the impression that moderators are allowed to be above the law.

Remember, moderators...perception CAN CREATE reality. And unfortunately, this perception existed before this ruling came down. I relaly think the moderators should reconsider, on those grounds.

You SIR, have gone to far!

I have never said out of 15 years on the web and 12 forums that I visited on a regular basis that the mods here are the strangest/above the law group yet. I have never said that and i WILL NOT.

[Army of GOD]

I completely agree with this ruling.