Community Feedback

[Daisy]

Matt, how is dry humping a violation of PG-13 policy. How is it any different than a dog humping Drakon's new leg for example?

How is it dry humping when those AT-ATs were clearly nakked!?!

 

[Darthphere]

We're talking about what is "deemed" offensive as offensive is objective.

But if you want to go into the whole PG-13 policy, I don't think wormpu's avatar did. It wasn't even animated.

In terms of SHH's policy of simulated sex in any form, obviously it does.

And that's what you should be trying to put forward and not, the, a couple of posters were offended.

Actually, I think his latest one was animated. Yes, yes it was actually. Still, besides the point.

How is it dry humping when those AT-ATs were clearly nakked!?!

Well, I never thought of it that way.

 

[WompuM]

Oh it was animated. And it was glorious.

 

[WompuM]

How is it dry humping when those AT-ATs were clearly nakked!?!

That armor is too strong for blasters obviously. So no risk of pregnancy.

 

[Eggyman]

That armor is too strong for blasters obviously. So no risk of pregnancy.

And yet as soon as they're on the floor, the blasters shoot the **** out of them.

 

[WompuM]

That's penetration Holmes. I could show you in detail, but my new avy, though reeking of Midwestern awesomeness, doesn't include any penetration.

 

[Eggyman]

Well, your avy has done some good. First doggy style (knees bent), then your avy came into existence. Now there's AT-AT style (legs and arms straight), which is similar to horsey style but with ion laser add-ons.

 

[Showtime]

I was not offended by the avatar whatsoever, however, I can understand why somebody else would be offended by it or wouldn’t want it to grace their screens at the wrong time as Daisy mentioned above.

As Erz mentioned this particular avatar would violate the SHH policy of no simulated sex in any form. Looking back on it, we should have discussed this with Wompum as soon as he displayed the avatar. This way Wompum would have been informed of the rule and that it would have to be removed because of Hype Policy. This way we are showing consistency, and we could eliminate that gray area we are in now.

Do I personally believe that avatar is offensive, no. However, we have a rule that we should be enforcing so there is no confusion. As a moderator, I take responsibility for not doing that as I have seen the avatar on many occasion.

 

[Daisy]

We're talking about what is "deemed" offensive as offensive is objective.

But if you want to go into the whole PG-13 policy, I don't think wormpu's avatar did. It wasn't even animated.

In terms of SHH's policy of simulated sex in any form, obviously it does.

And that's what you should be trying to put forward and not, the, a couple of posters were offended.

It was too animated....

 

[Erzengel]

It was too animated....

No one likes smarty pants.

 

[Daisy]

No one likes smarty pants.

Wanna bet?

 

[Erzengel]

I was not offended by the avatar whatsoever, however, I can understand why somebody else would be offended by it or wouldn’t want it to grace their screens at the wrong time as Daisy mentioned above.

As Erz mentioned this particular avatar would violate the SHH policy of no simulated sex in any form. Looking back on it, we should have discussed this with Wompum as soon as he displayed the avatar. This way Wompum would have been informed of the rule and that it would have to be removed because of Hype Policy. This way we are showing consistency, and we could eliminate that gray area we are in now.

Do I personally believe that avatar is offensive, no. However, we have a rule that we should be enforcing so there is no confusion. As a moderator, I take responsibility for not doing that as I have seen the avatar on many occasion.

The rule makes sense to me Show. I don't agree with the whole no simulated sex acts especially when it's humor based but if you want to do an iron blanket law, it's not a democracy.

But to start using reasons like some people complained, yadda yadda. No. In the end, you have a rule, poster broke rule, poster informed of rule. Done.

Although, I'm surprised he wasn't infracted considering how easily those are thrown around.

 

[Erzengel]

Wanna bet?

What do you got?

 

[Hunter Rider]

The rule makes sense to me Show. I don't agree with the whole no simulated sex acts especially when it's humor based but if you want to do an iron blanket law, it's not a democracy.

But to start using reasons like some people complained, yadda yadda. No. In the end, you have a rule, poster broke rule, poster informed of rule. Done.

Although, I'm surprised he wasn't infracted considering how easily those are thrown around.

Ever rule has a line, ascertaining what crosses it is never black and white.

Why would he be infracted when we were only asking him to remove it ?

 

[Matt]

The rule makes sense to me Show. I don't agree with the whole no simulated sex acts especially when it's humor based but if you want to do an iron blanket law, it's not a democracy.

But to start using reasons like some people complained, yadda yadda. No. In the end, you have a rule, poster broke rule, poster informed of rule. Done.

Although, I'm surprised he wasn't infracted considering how easily those are thrown around.

But you are assuming he broke the rule. As Hunter pointed out, the moderator staff did not make a ruling as to whether or not his avatar was in violation of the rules. You are making that assumption. Wompum was politely asked to remove the avatar due to complaints, and he complied. There was no threat of infraction, there was no coercion.

 

[jaguarr]

Well, your avy has done some good. First doggy style (knees bent), then your avy came into existence. Now there's AT-AT style (legs and arms straight), which is similar to horsey style but with ion laser add-ons.

That style just leaves you open to a grappling-hook take-down.

jag

 

[NewYorkSpider]

The mods say there's a PG-13 rating at the hype, yet WompuM had the avatar for quite awhile. Why didn't any of the mods tell him to take it down when they saw it?

 

[Erzengel]

Matt, you have a rule no? No simulated sex pictures which goes into avatars, correct?

His avatar clearly was 2 AT-ATs having sex.

That is simulated sex picture.

That's against SHH rule regardless if it wasn't voted upon. It's not open for interpretation.

That's like saying, "No Christian Bale avatars". Clearly Hunter has one. Do you really need the moderator staff to make a ruling to say it was a Christian Bale Avatar?

End of story.

And he didn't get an infraction because he's not a problem user.

Okay, that part I'm making a assumption on, but that is clearly an assumption based on passed experiences.

 

[WompuM]

Like I said in the DC Lounge, I am looking for some street cred though so, infract if you must.

 

[Matt]

I seldom if ever interact with Wompum. I've never noticed it before it was brought to my attention.

 

[Nirvana]

WompuM's avatar was epic. It will be missed.

 

[Darthphere]

But you are assuming he broke the rule. As Hunter pointed out, the moderator staff did not make a ruling as to whether or not his avatar was in violation of the rules. You are making that assumption. Wompum was politely asked to remove the avatar due to complaints, and he complied. There was no threat of infraction, there was no coercion.

But again, it's semantics. I mean, what other choice did he have honestly? Come on Matt, don't be glib.

 

[WompuM]

Like I told Ronny Shade, there is a new avatar in the works. One even more ambiguous.

 

[Eggyman]

I seldom if ever interact with Wompum. I've never noticed it before it was brought to my attention.

+1 for being observant while modding

 

[Darthphere]

Yeah, he only had the avatar for like a year.