robindreaux' avatar

[Jeff Hardy]

today i received this message from robindreaux...

Re: admin is after me...
Sent at: Wed Oct 22, 2008 1:28 am
From: robindreaux
To: rom_tobins Kid_A jaseleo gonnawoopyourass lanyards Indianz Conquer THORNHEART Night Strike samwisebrady turtleman redwards rbelgrod wolfman1969 latinthug Razzafrat Jeff Hardy hatta76 chasex MAXEY Sun Tzup HighlanderAttack

Greetings night strike, and Friends and supporters,

I would like to know who is responsible for deeming what is considered a pornographic image on CC. I am insulted and disgusted by the fact that you would consider my "thumbnail" avatar pornography. Have you no admiration, or better yet, respect for the female body? Apparently not! Intrinsically, in the avatar one can see my breasts, that's all. It is up to the viewer or observer to see what they want to see. I do not see or represent or condone pornography in this avatar. Yet, your warning states that I showed my genitalia...obviously you need to open a dictionary or a copy of Gray's Anatomy, and I do not mean the TV show. You are guilty of seeing what you want to see. There is nothing in the Rules stating anything about avatars. In addition, I did not sign, or confirm any acceptance of CC guidelines. Therefore, legally, CC can not hold me or anyone else for that matter, to CC dictations.

I deserve the right to know who is responsible for making the decision on what is considered pornographic. My photo is a representation of the celebration of the female form. This photo was taken by a very famous and well-known Art photographer, a once protege and colleague of Annie Lebovitz. So, in all fairness, tell me, are you the only judge and jury on this matter? If so, that is so entirely wrong. Entirely wrong. I am sure you will side-mouth some politically fabricated answer, as your eyes avert mine, issuing something to the effect that a committee of CC moderators met and came to a measure. Still Entirely Wrong!

Ahem, let me clear my throat of this debris...

Ahummmm...

Now, along this topic; I have always felt that CC should have a division or category revelation where adult can play with adults, and kids with kids. I do not like playing with 13 year olds. My preference. I have been verbally and sexually abused by so many minors on this site, that I do not care to remember once they discover that I am a woman. Adult male perverts too. I think CC should reqire players to list in their profile or even game listing, whether they are a minor or an adult. In fact, I do not believe that this game is proper appropriate for minors to play. Adults can not even handle it some times. This is not a game for kids, parents heed this... This game involves: throwing dice, assaults, attacks, spoils, killing another player, winning at all costs, rankings, medals, "trash talking game chat,"--which is sanctioned thereby condoned by the CC Forum for crying out loud...the list goes on...

I truly believe CC should have a filter where a player can state who he/she wants to play with...

3 boxes that a player can check...one, two, or all three.

[ ] minors
[ ] minors and adults
[ ] adults

This way kids can play with kids, and parents can be assured of that. They need not worry about adult orientated chat talk.

Minors and Adults can play together, if so orientated, creates a family game. Dads and kids can play with other dads and kids.

Adults can play with adults and be free of worry that their teammate or opponent is not an eleven year old. This also allows for a more intellectual game amongst adults.

This would solve a multitude of problems inherent in the CC structure.

I close by saying, by returning to human rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. I would love to take a poll of the first 200 CC participants as to whether they think my Avatar is pornographic or ART!

I am resoundingly positive that over 75% would recognize this as ART!

In fact, I ask the recipients of this message to pm night strike your thoughts...ART or what night strike defined it...

I send you all my ART avatar for perusal and thoughts one more time...

Peace,

Robinetta Isabella Dreaux










* Delete message
* Quote message

Disciplinary Measures

Sent at: Tue Oct 21, 2008 6:01 am
From: Night Strike
To: robindreaux
Hello robindreaux,

You have received a formal disciplinary warning.

Issued by: Night Strike

Comment:

Your avatar of the nearly naked warning is still up even though you've read my PM asking for it to be removed. It violates the forum guidelines under "Pornography in posts, avatars or hyperlinks". The next step will be a 24 hour vacation if it's not removed. Thanks.

Regards,
The Conquer Club

User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Night Strike
Battle Coordinator
Battle Coordinator

Posts: 2978
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Tournaments or Homework

* Private message
* MSNM/WLM



* Delete message
* Quote message

Sensoring Avatars??

Sent at: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:58 am
From: kronic69
To: Night Strike
BCC: robindreaux
Night Strike,

Are you kidding me??? Is this site now sensoring Avatars? Come on, we pay to use the site and should be able to express our own personalities. Aside for kiddie porn or any other gross perversions why are avatars being sensored? Who is setting these rules and where is it documents as to what is considered lude. I would hope that it is not just moderator opinion.

Kronic

User avatar
Major kronic69

Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:57 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

* Private message

[owenshooter]

yeah, this is an issue that has been visited and revisited, and this post is in the wrong
section of the forum, maybe a mod could put it in the right place. anyway, here is a 19
page thread in which andy weighs in on avatars and what is/isn't offensive. one note,
at the time of the thread, i was flying the "piss christ" piece of art work as my avatar...
anyway, give this thread a read...however, i would have to agree that the avatar in question is not offensive and fits WELL WITHIN THE GUIDELINES...-0

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=59020&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=owenshooter+avatars

[Neoteny]

I missed tits?

[lancehoch]

robindreaux has changed her avatar to this:
This is not the avatar that she was asked to remove. This avatar does not violate the site's restrictions on avatars and pictures. Her previous avatar (a completely different picture) did violate those restrictions.

[Neoteny]

So... yes?

I mean, I'm a pretty big fan of art...

[jiminski]

robindreaux has changed her avatar to this:
This is not the avatar that she was asked to remove. This avatar does not violate the site's restrictions on avatars and pictures. Her previous avatar (a completely different picture) did violate those restrictions.

hmm well, to be able to judge this issue correctly and objectively i will need to see the original 'offensive' image!

[pimpdave]

Neoteny, gtfo. There are no tits.

[Neoteny]

Neoteny, gtfo. There are no tits.

That is so wrong...

[pimpdave]

That is so wrong...

Well then, come back when you've got some art to share.



[DISCLAIMER TO LIZARDMEN: The above exchange between Neoteny and I, Detective Inspector Ridiculous, was carried out to expose how ludicrous it would be to ever look at pictures of women in their natural states.]

[owenshooter]

robindreaux has changed her avatar to this:
This is not the avatar that she was asked to remove. This avatar does not violate the site's restrictions on avatars and pictures. Her previous avatar (a completely different picture) did violate those restrictions.

thank you for adding that lance!! i'd have to see the original to fully comprehend and comment on the situation.
as is, just have to trust the mod squad on this one... but people should still check ou tth ethread i linked to for
some good info on avatars and how to report offensive avatars, etc, from andy and some of the mods...-0

[Kotaro]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually believe that moderators go around giving warnings just to make themselves feel better. And, with this belief comes the one that they actually do enforce the rules exactly as they are stated, and thus, despite this mans incessant *****ing, that the avatar in question was pornographic in nature.

Of course, until someone sends me the picture, I consider him guilty until proven innocent

[daydream]

Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually believe that moderators go around giving warnings just to make themselves feel better. And, with this belief comes the one that they actually do enforce the rules exactly as they are stated, and thus, despite this mans incessant *****ing, that the avatar in question was pornographic in nature.

Of course, until someone sends me the picture, I consider him guilty until proven innocent

her, if i got it right

[Twill]

Jeff, Robin, the rules very clearly state no "Pornography in posts, avatars or hyperlinks;"

A picture of a naked woman, "art" or not, is pornographic in nature and thus not allowed.

I rarely have seen any case that is more clear cut to be honest. I don't know why anyone would argue that a naked woman with completely exposed breasts is "within the rules"

If that rule is truly that offensive and we are truly violating your sensitivities, google is a great resource for finding a site which might be more to your liking - the rules on naked women aren't going to change here, no matter how much you try to stir things up

Moved to cheating and abuse>closed.

Twill

[Ditocoaf]

:roll:

Jeff, Robin, the rules very clearly state no "Pornography in posts, avatars or hyperlinks;"

A picture of a naked woman, "art" or not, is pornographic in nature and thus not allowed.

I rarely have seen any case that is more clear cut to be honest. I don't know why anyone would argue that a naked woman with completely exposed breasts is "within the rules"

If that rule is truly that offensive and we are truly violating your sensitivities, google is a great resource for finding a site which might be more to your liking - the rules on naked women aren't going to change here, no matter how much you try to stir things up

Moved to cheating and abuse>closed.

Twill

Hooray! He's alive! He returns!
We thought you were dead!
We... we thought you was... a toad...

[Neoteny]

:roll:

Jeff, Robin, the rules very clearly state no "Pornography in posts, avatars or hyperlinks;"

A picture of a naked woman, "art" or not, is pornographic in nature and thus not allowed.

I rarely have seen any case that is more clear cut to be honest. I don't know why anyone would argue that a naked woman with completely exposed breasts is "within the rules"

If that rule is truly that offensive and we are truly violating your sensitivities, google is a great resource for finding a site which might be more to your liking - the rules on naked women aren't going to change here, no matter how much you try to stir things up

Moved to cheating and abuse>closed.

Twill

Hooray! He's alive! He returns!
We thought you were dead!
We... we thought you was... a toad...

:chuckle chuckle:

[Zemljanin]

:roll:

Jeff, Robin, the rules very clearly state no "Pornography in posts, avatars or hyperlinks;"

A picture of a naked woman, "art" or not, is pornographic in nature and thus not allowed.

I rarely have seen any case that is more clear cut to be honest. I don't know why anyone would argue that a naked woman with completely exposed breasts is "within the rules"

If that rule is truly that offensive and we are truly violating your sensitivities, google is a great resource for finding a site which might be more to your liking - the rules on naked women aren't going to change here, no matter how much you try to stir things up

Moved to cheating and abuse>closed.

Twill

Nudity = pornography