Blue - were blue burgers the ones with the beer? I think I remember u talking about them last time.

Sparky, please go back and reread the entire thread. 5 or 6? Other than replies to you, I only have 2 messages in here.

Look at this thread! 60+ messages! It's the most popular thread on Blue's News and it's all about whether or not the logo is too "graphic". An overwhelming majority disagrees and wants the logo to stay. Therefore, I posted the second message to say that the majority didn't agree and that the logo would probably stay and that people should just stop beating the dead horse. And here you are, still beating it, with a sledge hammer no less. And here I am, having my turn at the hammer and replying to you.

Ok so he should have his opinion and you should have yours, agreed? But what is the point of having five or six posts saying the same thing? He is not going to change his opinion and obviously you are not going to change yours.

I'm not saying he can't voice his opinion. He's entitled to it, but majority wins. Otherwise we have another apartheid where the minority rules the majority. And THAT is not democracy. Read The Minority Should NOT Rule because that's a "Bad Thing" (tm) by Me.

<i>Maybe I misunderstood what you guys are saying, but the point of a democratic society is that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion</i>

No one is saying morgan should be banned for having his opinion. People are just stating their OWN opinion, that morgan/his opinion is stupid.

Now it's your turn to respect majority rule and let the issue die off. We like the logo and want it to stay. That's how the world works in a democratic society.

Now this is funny! While I am not offended by the logo I could not resist not to say something. Just because someone does not agree with the majority should he cede his opinion and agree with the majority? Maybe I misunderstood what you guys are saying, but the point of a democratic society is that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Read An Enemy of the People by Henrik Ibsen.

I would say, if you came to a gaming site dedicated to games about PEOPLE SHOOTING PEOPLE online, you can expect to see things that relate to PEOPLE SHOOTING PEOPLE.

(Sorry, but if I just said the site was a FPS gaming site, it would be too easy to dismiss what a FPS game is.)

If images of PEOPLE SHOOTING PEOPLE disturbs you right now, avoiding the subject, including websites devoted to it, might be your best bet until you're in a state of mind where it wouldn't bother you as much.
This wasn't meant to be a flame or anything, just an observation.

Edit: spelling correction.
This comment was edited on Oct 8, 07:10.

I think its funny. I want to loose too.

I was beginning to think that the OotB section was getting a bit too nice and fluffy -usually happens when Hudson (the wonder dog) does something funny (most people have dogs and can relate to what happens. Our Labrador refuses to walk past the car now adays and expects to be taken in the car everywhere.)

Good to see that there a still a few people with a sense of humour.

I was merely stating what I felt about it and asked others for their opinions on whether or not such a "level" of a logo was appropriate here.

Ok. I like the logo, like others have stated I feel that it's less violent than most because it shows (in my opinion) someone being disarmed without being harmed - although that's not why I like it.

The logo doesn't fit with what I've come to see as Blue's News' "class" or level of taste. Maybe that's personal opinion

Huh? Maybe that's personal opinion?

Oh well, you have your opinion and I have mine... no big deal.

*** As usual, I could be wrong. But really, what are the odds of that happening twice? ***

because we're all offended by something

I'm not offended by anything. Really. But I also understand that I am not normal.

Clearly you don't understand the difference between expressed and implied.
What he was asking for was censorship by omission. It's still censorship.
Regardless if you use a gun, or emotional persuasion (guilt), the end result is the same, it's merely achieved by different means.
I have a problem with him asking, because we're all offended by something. Once you capitulate for one person, where does it end?
If you don't like it, don't look at it. No one is forcing anyone to do so.

MorGan = STUPID POO EATING FECAL HEAD

Please, Mr. Blue. Please can we have a 'block sender' option?

MorGan = STUPID POO EATING FECAL HEAD

I didn't see things that weren't there. I saw exactly what was posted. I read and understood your posts. Understanding and agreeing are 2 totally different concept. I appreciate your opinions, but I don't agree with them. Now it's your turn to respect majority rule and let the issue die off. We like the logo and want it to stay. That's how the world works in a democratic society.

My question is why does everyone seem to be attacking Morgan's opinion? Someone's not stupid for thinking that an image on a gaming news site is somewhat too violent. I don't think he's really assuming anything extraordinary in the content of the picture there. I honestly think that if a special operative type person had a handgun pointed at a terrorist's head, he probably only has one real intention. Perhaps that's assuming a bit much, but whatever, that's not the point.

If Morgan doesn't like the logo, there's nothing really wrong with it. He does make at the very least a semi-valid point, whether you agree with it or not isn't going to change his opinion.

I'd say that if perhaps 10 or 20 or however many other people responded agreeing with firmly with him that Blue should probably take it down, but seeing as how there haven't been that many, I don't think it's really worth arguing over who's right or wrong and why, especially the way wasrad "tried" to.

I'm really tired of people seeing things that aren't even there. Indiv and a few others, thanks for actually taking the time to read and understand my post(s). I've had enough of the bull**** that some people have made up here.

m19

This comment was edited on Oct 7, 20:49.

Yea, I disagree with the basic proposition of the original post... I don't see how "graphic" is a fitting discription. There is no violence depicted in that logo. From observing (and using my knowledge of the game portrayed)it would appear that some sort of special fortress operative is in the process of disarming/neutralizing an armed terrorist.

What's graphic about that? He's not shooting, wounding, or killing him, and there's no implication that he's about to. He doesn't have the guy on his knees execution style. There's no blood, no muzzle flash, no corpse. The image is far from graphic. It's irrational to call it "disturbing" simply because the logo contains a firearm, especially cosidering the subject matter of this site. You have to view it in context, and as such I don't see anything disturbing about it.

~Jedi

Who thought the logo was pretty graphic? I don't see any blood/guts/gibs anywhere. This is stuff you see in games and movies ALL the time. Anybody watch Red Dragon last weekend? It was pretty damn good.

Blue, maybe you should add a Rated M logo to your site. When people complain, you can point to the M logo and say: "You were warned!".

I think Morgan19 is looking for attention and made what seemed, to him, an intuitive leap but fell on his face when landing. Bad taste Morgan? Please, this is a game site dedicated to FPS gaming and all that this implies (including graphic depictions of violence), You wanted to write something "provocative" and "insightful" and were called on it.

Not in the least. Are your comprehension skills so poor, that you can't discern the difference between what he originally posted, and my response?

LOL! Let's find out, shall we? It's really a simple matter to scroll down, copy and paste, and analyze. Please, tell me if my summaries are lacking in comprehension. The original post will be quoted (indented and italicized) and my summaries will be in normal text.

Original:

This isn't related to today's OotB, but does anyone else think this week's logo is in poor taste? I don't know about the rest of you, but living in Northern Virginia, where there's been 6 random sniper-style killings in the area in the past 4 days, I'm sickened by the image here of someone being held with a gun to their head regardless of him being a terrorist, as the image seems to depict.

My summary:
I don't like this week's logo. It's not only in poor taste because of what's been happening in near me in Virginia, but also because it's very disturbing to see a person with a gun being held to his head.

[Observation: No attempt at censorship or any attempt to "force an opinion on you".]

Original:

I'm not an advocate of blaming violence on computer games, but there's something really creepy about using such an image as a logo with the recent shootings. I understand the correlation to the new Clancy game, but it hits just a little too close to home considering there are probably many, many people like me who are too scared to go shopping for fear of suddenly getting shot in the back... Any chance we could change the logo to something a little less troubling?

Summary:
I don't think that video games cause violence, and understand that it's related to the new Tom Clancy game, but it's really disturbing for people who are being affected by local violence. Is it possible that Blue can change the logo?

[Observation: Again, no attempt to force an opinion and only a plea to encourage Blue to change the logo. If you think asking to change a logo (not even demanding, but simply asking "Any chance we could change the logo...?") is somehow trying to force censorship, then I certainly hold to my original post to say that you are so weak minded that you cannot discern between someone starting a discussion and someone trying to forcibly change your thoughts. If you don't have the conviction to stand by your ideals without a simple question changing your beliefs, then perhaps you are the one who has the problem.]

I don't want to bother everyone else by taking his post side-by-side with your post, but your post obviously conveyed the thought that you felt Morgan19 was trying to force his morals upon you and censor the logo. Maybe my comprehension does need work, and my summaries above are incorrect. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but... well, I'm not.

edit:
Fixed a misplaced "only".
This comment was edited on Oct 7, 18:47.