sorry for the wait... but i did not have time to work on the mod for the past few days.

I should be posting a new update in a day (or two)
Also keep the omg-furry/sex/other stuff out of this tread. if it bothers you please keep it to PMs

So you know, I'll be using the word "boobies" a lot in the following post. I hope you're okay with that.

Right, there's a difference between an actor with boobies, which is, thank god, natural, and an actor with boobies who is dressed like a cat. To say that the cat features are non-consequential additions to boobies is plain stupid and you know it. It is a directly fetishistic theme: clear cut furryism.

You find women who dress up as animals sexy. That's fine. Whether this stems from a desire to literally dehumanize women, or from this being the only way for you to pursue a beastiality fantasy without straying too far from cultural norms and taboos doesn't really matter to me. What does matter to me is that this is a categorically non-family friendly mod and it's continual existance on the forums is contrary to the precedents set by admins in their past actions. It demonstrates a lack of consistency in moderating.

For those who would contend that this mod is more family friendly then, say, oh just for example, baby mod, consider the intentions. While it could not be said that someone who makes a mod which contains a very shootable baby is in anyway trying to encourage infanticide, if only from the obvious air of humor which surrounded the mod, the same could not necessarily be said for the motivations of someone who makes a sexually explicit mod. One's purpose is humor, the other is sexuality: content aside, which of those two concepts is more family friendly?

Edit: I've made the following amendment to my statement instead of making another post so as to prevent further hijacking of this thread. If you would like to take this discussion further, please, for the benefit of Cooljoesmith, make a thread about:

On another note, consider the user's part in both mods. The only real objectionable part of the baby mod is that you can kill the babies. That's really the player's choice, though, and if the player were the sort of person who would be offended by a baby getting killed, he obviously would not set out to enable such an action. I'm not so much saying "Oh pff, the baby mod is innocent - it's the player's fault for deciding to kill the baby" - this would be like claiming that GTA is a non-violent game because you don't actually have to kill anyone if you don't want to. I admit that the babies are meant to be shootable. What does matter is that, looking at Metal Meltdown's comment below, if a user were forced to be exposed to both mods (this is why we consider what is appropriate to be posted on the forums in the first place: because a user will be likely exposed to the content of a mod whether they wanted to be or not), they would find the furry one less family friendly because the baby one only becomes inappropriate when the user takes action, specifically action which they would not make if they were someone who would be exposed anyway.

This explanation fails to explain the gifs posed in the baby mod thread. I accept this, and contend that the gifs should have been removed, not the entire thread.

First, I'm not against your baby mod. Second, you might have hijacked someone's thread. Third, I smell gasoline, all it needs is a spark and...

So can you PM the moderators or start a thread in general forum? After all it's still someone's mod thread.

That won't happen. Before you ask why, remember that this is the internet, and you posted a mod involving cat-women. I have nothing against it myself, but you could only expect not to get flamed if this were a furry forum.


Uh, Toast, I think that if you put a gun to someone's head, and made them choose one to play, they would (well, depending on whether we're talking America or not, given the American rating method used on video games) choose this one without a second thought. If the mod involved actually having sex with cat-women, then I think it would have lasted a hell of a lot less than your baby mod, and your point would have been perfectly valid.

This is not a "whose mod is worse" fight. Worse, your silly argument works only when you are looking at every goddamn thing with boobs sexually, and then get all huffiity when they look "wrong" to you.
Hey, wanna freak yourself out? People with paralysis and even missing limbs are human, and guess what?
They can reproduce too. And do.
Guess what? I could go and add boobs to all of CC, humanoid or not, and it would not mean I want to see a dropship make love with a dreadnought.
Go away. You are one of the worst kinds of internet denizen, come back when you have learned how to think.
Take your bigotry and neo-luddism out of here. Go further and I guarantee godwin's law taking effect.

Can a mod please clean this thread up, and modify the OP to reflect this? This is demeaning to even see. Waiting for an update has never been more painful, it is actively reducing the fun I get from CC.

Seconded. I came here to have fun, not to watch a flame war.

Don't be discouraged, cooljoesmith. Keep working on the mod to the best of your ability.

I Will not be discouraged!

SUPER UPDATE HO!

Raw, if you think armoured cat girls with guns is sexual then you are 6 years old.

Thanks for the update! DLing now, will edit with C and C.

Right, so it looks like no one can read:

"If you would like to take this discussion further, please, for the benefit of Cooljoesmith, make a thread about"

There is no reason this conversation can't be had in a rational tone and not at the expense of Colljoesmith. I did not originally intend to take over his thread; I only realized my mistake after reading Decaying Soldat's comment. Please do not respond to this or my previous post in this thread. Again, if you would like to discuss mod censorship further, make another thread about it. I would do this myself but I feel as if there would be a fundamental lack of objectivity if I was the OP.

To clarify and hopefully to get this thread back on track, I in no way wish to discourage Cooljoesmith. If you got this vibe, please reread my comments more carefully. I specifically state that I am not interested in the banning of this mod per say. It is the fact that this mod was not banned in the face of another mod which was banned which concerns me. If I were the proverbial benevolent dictator, I would have neither mods banned.

Ummm... New version three... Fixes Jumpack trooper from going from one side of the map to the other when x-wrap is disabled....(thought i would catch that.)

Maybe no-one wants to make a new thread, almost identical to the one you made, that was locked. It would be nothing but a waste of space. I suggest we ask CoolJoeSmith about what he wants.



I'll make this brief: Anthropomorphic women are not inherently sexual, unless you perceive it that way. You cannot compare babies that are meant to be used as meatshields to said anthropomorphic women.

I see, you're just pissed that your mod got banned and this one didn't. As 3POK said they are totally different.

But you did have a good point, Joe asked us (Including you.) to stop.
So...

New updates!
Hurrah!
Time to download and test...

Update! Sweeeet!

The bomb is AWESOME.

Furry-bashing and bringing up the baby mod (again) is not welcome. Cut it out.