Originally posted by jdbolick
Ad hominems are fun. For instance, someone like you trying to argue with me is comical to begin with because it's so far out of your realistic potential. Regardless, you're acting like multiple people including me didn't already articulate precisely why placing strict limits on avatars is annoying. So yes, it quite clearly does affect enjoyment whether you stubborn choose to deny that or not. You sticking your head in the sand has no actual effect on reality.
It does when there's no positive to offset it, and you haven't even pretended to offer anything of that sort despite me encouraging you to do so. The only rebuttal you've posted thus far is "Bort can do what he wants because it's his site," which as I mentioned is pretty strong evidence that you're out of your depth on this one and should really back away from the argument as quickly as possible. You're letting pride lead you into the deep end when you've shown no ability to swim.
First point, I certainly didn't say it might not be annoying, to a point, to a certain type of person. What I'm suggesting is that you're vastly overstating the part this particular decision would play in someone's analysis of whether to play the game, and ultimately pay to play the game. In no way, shape, or form was cleavage or underboob ever considered a selling point of the game - it's a football game. Just because there may be a small number of people out there who would settle for an inferior product in a game just because that inferior product has more cleavage doesn't mean it's the correct choice.
Second point, ad hominems generally only serve to make the person using them look foolish.
Third point, you are (understandably, given your perspective) underestimating the percentage of the player base who would like to see more restrictions on arguably inappropriate content. To argue that there is no offset is to argue that all, or at the very least the significant majority, agree with your viewpoint regarding less restrictive rules on content - but, that is not the case. There will always be a bit of a push-and-pull between the part of the userbase that would like a more family atmosphere, and the part of the userbase that would like a more free, traditional-internet community where more things are allowed. Hey, I post on 4chan on occasion, I can see the appeal of that kind of thing, but I also see the appeal of highly moderated forums where discussions are micromanaged. I don't want GLB to be either of those things, though. Any change in the application of content rules which we are discussing here is simply a slight shift in the direction of the former part of the userbase, and away from the latter part, but not in such a substantial way that it should seriously affect the userbase itself. Maybe a couple of people quit because they don't like following new rules, maybe a couple people join because it's a better forum for their kids to use. Honestly it's probably a wash in the long run, but that's my point - in the grand scheme of things, is a very minor change, which should not concern people to the extent it seems to be doing except that those people are searching for a cause against which they can campaign.
