Forums → The Tavern → {Sophistry}Armorgames Ads Protest!

Yet another ads protest, trollololol.
I'll answer this with the same response every single other 'ad debate' has got: Suck. it. up.

I was just saying the ads are too "revealing". Two that come to mind is the "Zwinky" thing and the "My Tattoo Girl" ads.

If you're thirteen and 'allowed' on armorgames, i don't see how either ads are too revealing. Maybe for an 8 year old. But they're animated and do not show anything inappropriate.

It's either ignore the ads and enjoy free games, or go to a website that charges you to play the same games without the little eye candy eyes on the side ;]

"My Tattoo Girl"

Yeah I remember that. Things like that just give me the creeps.

Two that come to mind is the "Zwinky"

*rolls on floor laughing* You're complaining that a poorly drawn girl who doesn't even meet cartoon standards in underwear, with clothes next to it to dress them up, is too revealing? Grow up man. Barbies are more porno than that.

"My Tattoo Girl" ads.

I don't know what this is.

Most ads today have no modesty or moral standards.

Some people today are too sensitive.

You say I just need to live with the ads and continue on with my life?

What they're doing isn't wrong, even if you think so. You can't force others to adapt to your beliefs. If you don't like that, you're free to stay away, just don't try to make people do what you want them to.

Most ads today have no modesty or moral standards.

According to you. I have no problem with most adds. Although I do agree that the Evony ads were over the top, especially with, "have a roman orgy" as what she said. I seriously thought it was a porn game for a looooooooong time.

The one and only reason I posted this thread was to try to get enough people to protest against inappropriate ads.

Which is fine. IF you weren't arguing that they're inappropriate for kids UNDER 13, which is what this site is rated, or you had legitimately inappropriate ads to complain about.

You say i'm an idiot that can't take a little revealing?

No one's called you an idiot. I can't say people haven't thought it. But that's beside the point. It IS just a little revealing and you've likely seen more at any pool or beach.

You say I just need to live with the ads and continue on with my life?

As has been said like twenty times now, get an ad blocker if you can't stand them.

Most ads today have no modesty or moral standards. The one and only reason I posted this thread was to try to get enough people to protest against inappropriate ads. Whats that? You say i'm an idiot that can't take a little revealing? You say I just need to live with the ads and continue on with my life? Suck it up.

Most ads have no modesty or moral standards? Considering only a small percentage of ads are to do with anything inappropriate, your statement is a little incorrect.

As for living with adds and continuing with your life? Yes, pretty much. AG is very user friendly and very age friendly considering 13 is the age in which one can sign up for it and knowing that under 13s dodge the terms and create accounts too - thus, i highly doubt yo will ever see anything actually 'revealing'. Any nudity? No. Anything suggestive? Yes.

I know not just 13+ kids play on this site. My 9 year old sister plays on it everyday.

Then if there's anything inappropriate (which you're claiming there is) you should, for now personally the 5th time and probably a total of 30 times, INSTALL AN AD BLOCKER, or your PARENTS should actually PARENT.

Besides, the 13+ thing is just for the account.

It's both. Or did you think that bunnies exploding in gore was PG?

Wait, i apologize [wholeheartedly] to soccerdude, i just realised he was listing adverts and my comment made me sound rather harsh.

there was this one ad with a chick showing the side of her Boob but unless you see any nipples and crap

Animated or non animated?

So, I was seeing Jake's point completely (while still not agreeing considering the mentioned issues and my own opinion and so forth), but then:

I know not just 13+ kids play on this site. My 9 year old sister plays on it everyday. Besides, the 13+ thing is just for the account.

And you let her?
How is AG irresponsible in this context, because all I can see is a big brother doing a bad job at protecting his sister from the "harm" he himself is pointing out!

Now, let me put this in perspective:
If you are out shopping with your kids, or your younger siblings or other smaller children... Who would then be responsible for those children? The supermarket, that is just there for you to pay for stuff you need? Or you, considering it is your crotch spawn/your fellow crotch spawn/crotch spawn you are looking after?
If you are at the library and the kids are noisy and tearing out pages, is the librarian, who would backhand your kids if they wouldn't get sued for it, responsible for what the kids are doing or are you as the parent/sibling/caretaker responsible and thus also able to backhand the kids for ruining precious materials?
If a kid brings a porn mag or a dildo or a (n unloaded) gun, a mag/dildo/gun they have found at home, to school, is this the fault of the teacher, who will have remove these items and make sure no one is somehow harmed or going to tell their parents or something similar, or is it the parent that let the kid take those things to school, either without removing it or checking or by simply enabling them to find and reach such items?

Because what you are pointing out is that AG is at fault for having ads you don't agree with, and that it is their responsibility to take care of your sister.

So, while I can see your point that oh-no-almost-almost-naked-women-on-a-site-children-can-access, it is not something AG can do anything about. Or should, for that matter.
The ads are not breaking the rules of this site. They are not breaking the pg13 rating they have put on themselves. If they decided to do anything about it, they would lose ad revenue and thus money. Because they are simply being paid to have an ad firm how their ads here. They have no say in what the ads are, beside being able to tell the firm that they would like the ads to at least be pg13, and keep the right of complaining of any ad includes malware an viruses, and that is it.
Go complain to the firm. Make your own firm. Be a good sibling or parent and make sure the place your kid or sibling ventures to is safe, or do something active about it, instead of expecting others to do your job.

Or sell your kid to AG, then they will be their responsibility. And they would doubtfully let them play on AG unsupervised either.

Now, if anyone else should be wondering about my stand on this after all that rage, let's take it again, but without the passion:
Parents are the ones responsible for the kids, unless they are handing over this responsibility to a caregiver, for example a school. As such, the responsible person in the children's life should be the one at fault for the kids accidentally "harming" themselves, or getting lost, or ruining public material.
I am aware that some parents are somehow oblivious to this responsibility, but that doesn't mean that everyone should cater to their needs, because in that case, I am going out to get some crotch spawns and then demand that I am made king of the world. Because I can. Because I have kids.
So. If the ads make their way directly into the sensitive eye of your child, either monitor them to make sure what they are playing and clicking on (you should be doing this anyway), or at least put up an ad blocker, so those relieving but somehow socially acceptable ads does not make their way to your computer screen.
It would most likely also stop you from getting vira when your kid decide to click everything everywhere.

... Yes, I am done.

You say i'm an idiot that can't take a little revealing? You say I just need to live with the ads and continue on with my life?

Do you really want me to answer that? Really? Don't tempt me, since I want you to have some semblance of dignity left.

The others have already sewen up a nice body-covering garment of perfectly logical arguments from a broad-based perspective, that has covered up the patches of poor reasoning you left *exposed*. Oh yes, they're covering your arguments' naked portions pretty well. Beside what most users have more than adequately phrased, expounded and handed back to you perhaps the deeper question to answer, is the paradoxical attitude of prudish, morally upright people, who, *sometimes*, *generally* are so because of their faith.

Why is it that gore and violence is generally allowed in the media without so much as a comment on how it looks like tomato sauce, whilst a few inches of skin are proclaimed as tragically immoral.

Alas! All is lost, because the harlot at Subway was wearing a blouse that had no sleeves! Why don't you tell the average Jill on the street that she can't wear such and such *revealing* clothes while you're on your anti-skin-morality crusade?


Fie! Because today, a woman, a virtual woman, showing some skin, even a poorly drawn one that is hardly going to get a normal male hot and bothered showing some skin is pornography. Pornography. A tainted woman! Oh, save us from such perverse transgression! It burns, torments, gouges out my suffering eyes!

Shame! Oh the perfidious shame of sex! It's an evil thing, something that turns us all into allies of immorality and debauchedness because we love someone else passionately! We must repress our natural tendencies! Onward to salvation!

Grow up. If some skin sets you on edge like this, good luck adjusting to life after a cloistered school life. Also, notice how people who keep bringing sex and morality in the same breathe tend to look a bit obsessed with the idea of sex itself?