Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Jessica Nigri asked to leave? Why?

13»

Posts

  • MessiahCareyMessiahCarey Registered User
    Jars wrote: »
    really, would it have been okay for her to cosplay a biker from BMX XXX as long as it was in the spirit of cosplay? obviously not regardless of if you think saying it's inappropriate is 'slut shaming' or whatever. it is what it is; pandering.

    Well I'm the only person who's used that phrase I think, so I assume you're talking to me (unless I missed something). There's no "or whatever" about it - telling women to restrict what they wear, but not men, based on the idea that the woman might be so attractive that other people can't comport themselves properly could possibly be definition #2 if Webster had the stones to put it in his dictionary.

    But the answer is answered relatively simply by noting that "indecent exposure" is a law that trumps the Convention Center OR PAX's policy decisions. Heh. ;)

    You're not wrong obvs - it *IS* pandering. But there's plenty of allowed forms of pandering (isn't swag pandering? I would NOT have watched that Underdark video if I couldn't get a picture with Lloth after) right down to which games developers choose to demo, so that doesn't seem to be the "metric" being used to determine what is and isn't okay.

    I don't think the "hypocrite" word is appropriate like some seem to, since it implies a certain intent - but it seems as though they tried to set a standard that was very difficult to enforce, and ran into the problem of enforcing it.

  • gamerman1227gamerman1227 Registered User regular
    Well I'm the only person who's used that phrase I think, so I assume you're talking to me (unless I missed something). There's no "or whatever" about it - telling women to restrict what they wear, but not men, based on the idea that the woman might be so attractive that other people can't comport themselves properly could possibly be definition #2 if Webster had the stones to put it in his dictionary.

    Let's be realistic, the gender demographics at PAX skew probably 90 - 95% male, so obviously a scantily clad female is going cause far more problems with horndogs that can't control themselves that a scantily clad men would. What would a scantily clad man look like anyways? I certainly didn't see any at the show.

  • jdixon1972jdixon1972 Registered User regular
    I can' honestly believe the views stated by rascal and others. You're perfectly fine with someone cosplaying in an outfit that shows more skin than some softcore porn titles (essentially being unpayed promoters of the game), but let a company pay someone to do the same thing, and then suddenly its so wrong? Not to mention that this company has paid these programmers to make a game and design a character that sounds like you have no problem exposing your child to, but let someone get paid to dress like that character to promote the game, and again, you make it sound like its so freakin immoral and wrong! So, using your line of thinking, the unshown sex scene in the PSP version of God Of War is perfectly acceptable, and anyone cosplaying that scene (dressing in the highly revealing costumes and maybe reenacting the lines, but never anything physical, is perfectly accectable. However, letting Sony pay for the actors to do that would not be??? Could the company pay someone to dress exactly like the Lollipop Chainsaw character in the exact same costume if said model could somehow miraculously spout every piece of code in the game and be able to tutor every con-goer in the intricacies of every combo attack that each character possesses?

    This is crazy! This girl was hired for the express purpose of promoting the lead character in Lollipop Chainsaw, which I'm sure Jerry and Mike are already familiar with the character design. If they take offense to the costume, the should equally take offense with the way the character is designed in the game itself. Therefore, they shouldn't even be letting Lollipop Chainsaw be displayed on the floor in the first place. This is not the same as what you would see in any (insert generic car/boat show name) where you can't throw a rock and not hit some string bikini clad model drooling and crawling all over the latest sports car or boat. Sex sells is all these type of shows care about. If you continue to make and buy games using these types of characters, you can't be offended when the same company decides to pay actors/models to dress up as these same characters. So, it's perfectly fine to have Laura Croft strut around in extremely tight hot shorts and sporting a shirt 4 sizes to small, but no, you can't have an actress do the same thing to promote the game? Let's see, it's highly acceptable to parade around a cast of female fighters in Soul Caliber V that would probably spend at most $10 combined on a clothing budget, but it's not right to have anyone hired by the company to dress as these characters and promote the game? Oh, and let's not forget all the various states of undress that are displayed by any number of female characters in American and Japanese role playing games.

    It IS hypocrisy, a double standard, in bad faith, double dealing, bigoted, and any number of synonyms you could pull from the american dictionary. You don't want a company to pay someone to dress as a character from that company's game, but it's perfectly ok for someone to do it for free. What does money or any physical knowledge of the game have to do with this at all????????? And what does this say of any parent who condones this? Ok, Suzie, it's perfectly acceptable for you to go to Pax and dress as the homicidal, extremely cleavage engorged nurse from that Skullgirls videogame you like, but if the developers want to hire you to go on an american tour promoting the game, then no, it would not be ok at all. Mmmmm, the only reason that sounds kind of logical here is that you wouldn't want your little girl dressing like a tramp for money.

    And don't even get me started on what this says about the way the video game industry as a whole promotes and treats women in general. No, wait, PLEASE get me started.

  • DanUNGDanUNG Registered User regular
    I'm okay with cosplayers dressing as characters who show skin. Sometimes the cosplayer loves the character, sometimes they just want attention. I can't say I really care either way.

    I'm not okay with PAX becoming like E3 with underdressed and uninformed "exhibitors." Gives off the wrong impression to people who are already wary of games. Think about it this way -- would you rather the pictures in your local newspaper's PAX coverage be gamers playing games, or pics of Jessica Nigri with fans?

  • jdixon1972jdixon1972 Registered User regular
    The costume that Jessica wore was no, and I repeat, NO more worse than anything you'd see on an NFL cheerleader on any Sunday afternoon. That's kind of a slap in the face to her, saying she may be good enough to promote the game, but not good enough to be promoted in the news about a gaming convention, for which she was paid to promote, well I didn't see this coming, A GAME!!!!

    Yes, there are indecency laws everywhere but they are exactly that, LAWS! It's not a loose specification created by two guys who may be to afraid offend the moral majority, who might say bad things about them...

  • ottoman673ottoman673 Registered User
    Jars wrote: »
    really, would it have been okay for her to cosplay a biker from BMX XXX as long as it was in the spirit of cosplay? obviously not regardless of if you think saying it's inappropriate is 'slut shaming' or whatever. it is what it is; pandering.

    BMX XXX would never be approved for a spot on the Expo hall floor initally, sir.

    Try again. This isn't AVN. This is PAX.

    PAX East 2012 Checklist: [x] 3 Day Pass [x] Time off Work [x] Flight [x] Hotel
  • XalaraXalara Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well I'm the only person who's used that phrase I think, so I assume you're talking to me (unless I missed something). There's no "or whatever" about it - telling women to restrict what they wear, but not men, based on the idea that the woman might be so attractive that other people can't comport themselves properly could possibly be definition #2 if Webster had the stones to put it in his dictionary.

    Let's be realistic, the gender demographics at PAX skew probably 90 - 95% male, so obviously a scantily clad female is going cause far more problems with horndogs that can't control themselves that a scantily clad men would. What would a scantily clad man look like anyways? I certainly didn't see any at the show.

    So you are saying that if a man cannot control himself in front of a woman because of the way she is dressed it is the woman's fault? You're ostensibly saying the same thing that a police officer in Canada said that sparked international protests. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SlutWalk This type of thought should not enter into the conversation because not only is it wrong it is also not the reason for the no booth babe policy.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it the original intent of the "no booth babe policy" was to prevent the atmosphere of sexual exploitation that inevitably accompanies booth babes (and hunks) because that is something that the community does not want. The policy I believe, also allows for people who are hired to dress up as characters from the games they are promoting. The problem in this situation comes from the fact that:

    1) Jessica Nigri was following policy since she was dressed as the character and was quite knowledgeable of the game in question.
    2) Robert Khoo said to Kotaku that the reason Jessica was forced to change out of costume was to maintain a family friendly atmosphere at PAX when PAX is most definitely not family friendly as others have pointed out.

    Xalara on
  • Bobkins FlymoBobkins Flymo Nice day for a Waa WeddingRegistered User, Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited April 2012
    jdixon, it's painfully clear that you aren't reading posts and just want to read your own words and recline softly in smug self-satisfaction. Let's test this hypothesis.

    A person cosplaying willfully chooses to put on a costume because he or she loves the character/franchise/whatever. A person put into a bathing suit to sell games is exploiting women to make a buck. That the woman in this case was cool with it doesn't matter: it still is making money off treating women as objects. Unfortunate for her, but sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good.

    The game in question has elements that are objectionable to me, but if we got rid of any game with the slightest hint of misogyny, then the Expo Hall would pretty much be indie titles (hey, that actually sounds like a decent idea...). It's also clear that a lot of women that cosplay aren't super comfortable with their costumes, but have almost dick for choices if they want to represent a franchise or game that they like. This is a whole other issue to discuss, but keep in mind that the gaming industry is still very much a boys' club. It'd be nice if PAX could help change that.

    Back to the specific example here: Lollipop Chainsaw didn't need to play up the main character to sell the game. Their booth already had a cool, run-down school bus thing going on. What, exactly, did having the character in cosplay add to this? I found the booth eye-catching BEFORE even seeing the cosplayer there. The character is brand-new, so it's not like it'd be a memorable character that people would recognize. It was an attractive woman in a skimpy outfit meant to draw guys there. If you can't see this for what it is, then I don't know what to tell you.

    The morality of it has nothing to do with modesty. It's a convention brought to you by a 13+ comic, so adults should be aware of that before bringing the kids. The human body is awesome, and most of us enjoying seeing it. The issue here is dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing BUT that human body, and it's simply for the sake of making a buck. It's creepy and turns half the human population off this hobby.

    Bobkins Flymo on
    0SZEg7b.png
  • thespianthespian Registered User
    Rules need to be enforced by humans. Humans are imperfect. Jessica Nigiri wore something on Friday that skirted (so to, uh, speak) the booth babe rule. She got away with it. It was really on the border of acceptable, and so while they appear to have gotten some complaints, nothing happened on Friday. Saturday she wore something that clearly broke the rules. Hell, on her own, she said she *hoped* they would let her wear the skintight suit at PAX. She knew it might be too much going into things. She broke the rules that she seems to have known existed, hoping to get away with it (she could have easily checked with PAX while she was taking pics of herself and posting them to build up fan excitement). She and WB were called on it. The *result* of being called on it was she brought attention to her Friday outfit (which Khoo said there were also complaints about, just not as many; it was Saturday which set off alarms).

    The end result, once she provoked PAX to *need* to give a ruling on Friday's outfit, was that it was not acceptable, probably in light of the fact that she had by then pushed past the rule line.

    That she got away with it on Friday does not mean it was acceptable; it means that because there were thousands of things being taken care of by mere dozens of people, it got missed. Other booth-babe-like behaviors also got missed. We still teach children not to cheat or steal just because other people get away with it. That other booth babes did not get called out does not mean that they were acceptable, just that any body of (mostly voluntary) human beings trying to get people to play by the rules is going to be imperfect. Imperfect is not the same as hypocritical.

  • XalaraXalara Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Upon further thought I think the quandary in front of PAX organizers right now is that professional cosplayers who are paid, like Jessica Nigri, are becoming more common. Thus is it alright to force a paid cosplayer to change costume but let a non-paid cosplayer stay in costume when both are cosplaying the same character? Furthermore, if we are going to restrict how paid cosplayers can dress then what constitutes the creation of an "atmosphere of sexual exploitation"? Especially since the costumes they are wearing will often match the massive artwork splayed on the booth behind them. Banning the costume but not the booth display in that situation sends the wrong message, I think.

    Xalara on
  • KikiItemriKikiItemri Registered User
    I saw Jessica in the Juliet's cheerleader outfit, and honestly, I don't think there was anything too offensive or sexual about it. Hell, cheerleader outfits can be that revealing in reality. The pink outfit, which I only saw in pictures, is a little bit of a line-crosser, I admit, but I still think she looked good. If she was asked to leave in accordance with PAX's policies, then that's what had to be done. I just wish that companies attending PAX could have been a bit more informed/advised about the "No booth babe" policy beforehand so that this incident didn't have to happen.

    Here is my 2 cents about this:

    I do understand the policy about booth babes. Not everyone is going to like, or even feel comfortable, being around dozens of scantily clad women loitering around booths only to look sexy and know nothing about the product. (Though, if the girls make the choice to want to work as a booth babe, that is their right and I am not going to badmouth them. Their life - their choice.) I think what needs to be reflected upon is what would be the difference between a booth babe or a prompter who may resemble a booth babe.

    Taking Lollipop Chainsaw as an example - what if Jessica was taking on Juliet's character, and was there to represent the game's protagonist as an interactive "Talk to Juliet - the heroine of Lollipop Chainsaw" element of the booth? Of course, she would have to be well versed in the game's story as well as Juliet's story and background, which would obviously hold up to the idea of staff knowing about the game/product they are promoting. Would she still be considered a booth babe then?

    If a girl (or anyone for that matter) was hired to represent a company or a game that is on display at PAX, I think that if they know enough about the product and can legitimately answer questions and interact with the convention's attendees in a decent way, I see no harm in that. After all, they would be considered an employee representing that company at that time. Now, if the girl/guy in question knew nothing about the company/product at all and was just standing there to bring in attention, that I would consider inappropriate and a breach of PAX's booth babe policy.

    The booth babe policy that is in place is not at all a bad idea, but I think that it could be fine-tuned slightly. If a company hires someone to represent a character, and make sure they are well versed as the character they are representing, as well being versed with story of the game, I think that is fine to be at PAX - as long as they're not just there to stand around and look pretty for pictures. As an interactive "Meet *insert character name here" and ask them questions!" aspect to a booth, I think that would be acceptable, and even very fun. If you're really excited about an upcoming game, or about a new game in a series, what wouldn't be appealing about that?

    What it all comes down to, in the end, is semantics. If you have a policy - make it clear not only in the wording of the policy, but in advising exhibitioners about it so incidents like this don't have to happen again. Make it clear that all employees of a booth need to have at least some basic and possibly some specific knowledge about the company or product - that no one should just be there to stand around and look pretty. I don't think that would be that hard to do.


    On a side note: I think Jessica did a great job representing Juliet when it comes to cosplay.

  • BushmaoriBushmaori Registered User
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Stuff

    So can you answer for us how it is okay to allow violent scenes of death to be displayed but not suggestive sexuality?

    Alec Mann Action Man
    Spoiler:
  • ottoman673ottoman673 Registered User
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    jdixon, it's painfully clear that you aren't reading posts and just want to read your own words and recline softly in smug self-satisfaction. Let's test this hypothesis.

    A person cosplaying willfully chooses to put on a costume because he or she loves the character/franchise/whatever. A person put into a bathing suit to sell games is exploiting women to make a buck. That the woman in this case was cool with it doesn't matter: it still is making money off treating women as objects. Unfortunate for her, but sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good.

    The game in question has elements that are objectionable to me, but if we got rid of any game with the slightest hint of misogyny, then the Expo Hall would pretty much be indie titles (hey, that actually sounds like a decent idea...). It's also clear that a lot of women that cosplay aren't super comfortable with their costumes, but have almost dick for choices if they want to represent a franchise or game that they like. This is a whole other issue to discuss, but keep in mind that the gaming industry is still very much a boys' club. It'd be nice if PAX could help change that.

    Back to the specific example here: Lollipop Chainsaw didn't need to play up the main character to sell the game. Their booth already had a cool, run-down school bus thing going on. What, exactly, did having the character in cosplay add to this? I found the booth eye-catching BEFORE even seeing the cosplayer there. The character is brand-new, so it's not like it'd be a memorable character that people would recognize. It was an attractive woman in a skimpy outfit meant to draw guys there. If you can't see this for what it is, then I don't know what to tell you.

    The morality of it has nothing to do with modesty. It's a convention brought to you by a 13+ comic, so adults should be aware of that before bringing the kids. The human body is awesome, and most of us enjoying seeing it. The issue here is dehumanizing people and reducing them to nothing BUT that human body, and it's simply for the sake of making a buck. It's creepy and turns half the human population off this hobby.

    I think you're totally glossing over the direct quote from Robert Khoo, where he said the removal of booth babes was to make the show family oriented. See: Kotaku quote i posted earlier.

    Let me draw you up another example. Sunday, i was sitting at the Alienware booth enjoying some LoL gaming. They had a commentator kind of commenting on what was going on, but he clearly didn't care/clearly understand the finer aspects of LoL. He was a man with a loud voice that fit an athletic build profile hired to commentate to make it look badass. Was he dehumanized because he was used for his voice/appearance?

    The fact of the matter is that the PAX Community voted on this 2 years ago. Well, it's been 2 years, and this issue has come up in both years since. I think there should be a re-vote, in order to avoid further controversy. Either that, or the guidelines for cosplay apparel need to be spread to both exhibitors and cosplayers alike.

    Think with your 12 year old mind here: Boobs are boobs. Skin is skin. What the fuck difference does it make if it's an exhibitor, who CHOOSES to wear that outfit [the dehumanization argument is bullshit. If these women truly felt dehumanized or exploited... they wouldn't do it. duh.] And again - maybe i gave the PAX community too much credit, but I would think most of the people [especially on these forums] would be able to see beyond the 'sex sells' aspect.

    I sure hope none of you who object to this ever go to a public beach. god forbid, you may go blind from what you see.

    PAX East 2012 Checklist: [x] 3 Day Pass [x] Time off Work [x] Flight [x] Hotel
  • jdixon1972jdixon1972 Registered User regular
    OK, since I am truly reclining as I write this and I am feeling truly smug (not in self-satisfaction, but the fact I'm about to blow a hole so big in your post that it may just match the one in your head). So lets pull apart this post paragraph by painful paragraph.
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    jdixon, Let's test this hypothesis.
    (Love the opener. It's nice that someone knows what smug self-satisfaction is!)

    A person cosplaying willfully chooses to put on a costume because he or she loves the character/franchise/whatever. A person put into a bathing suit to sell games is exploiting women to make a buck. That the woman in this case was cool with it doesn't matter: it still is making money off treating women as objects. Unfortunate for her, but sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good.
    (Let's see, the last time I remember seeing Ms. Jessica, I truly don't believe she was in a bikini. Mmmmm, I could almost swear she was wearing a pretty authentic costume representation of the character she was payed to play. Now, I may be a gay man, but I really think I know what a bikini is and that was not it. If this is truly your attitude, then putting a woman in any costume would be exploiting them!)

    The game in question has elements that are objectionable to me, but if we got rid of any game with the slightest hint of misogyny, then the Expo Hall would pretty much be indie titles (hey, that actually sounds like a decent idea...). It's also clear that a lot of women that cosplay aren't super comfortable with their costumes, but have almost dick for choices if they want to represent a franchise or game that they like. This is a whole other issue to discuss, but keep in mind that the gaming industry is still very much a boys' club. It'd be nice if PAX could help change that.
    (OK, I'm putting myself in the role of a typical woman. I'm a really big gamer and lets say I like the S&M character in the new Double Dragon Neon game. I've got the body for it and a person that can make a killer costume. Do you honestly think this women would put on this costume if she wasn't 100% comfortable with it? That is utter stupidity to think that a woman (or a man for that matter) would willingly put themselves in a situation that would make them uncomfortable in any sense! That's like saying a woman is going to a Halloween party and the only costume she can find is the slutty maid, yet she's got to wear this costume, even though it really does make her feel slutty. But hey, she's got to do it, like someone is holding a gun to her head!)

    Back to the specific example here: Lollipop Chainsaw didn't need to play up the main character to sell the game. Their booth already had a cool, run-down school bus thing going on. What, exactly, did having the character in cosplay add to this? I found the booth eye-catching BEFORE even seeing the cosplayer there. The character is brand-new, so it's not like it'd be a memorable character that people would recognize. It was an attractive woman in a skimpy outfit meant to draw guys there. If you can't see this for what it is, then I don't know what to tell you.
    (It's called Lollipop Chainsaw, about a girl in skimpy outfits basically killing anything that moves. I've seen the marketing material for this game, and a school bus is in one scene in the background. This game is known for the title character, not some random school bus. You know, when I walked by it one time, I thought it was lame, then the next day when Jessica was there with the chainsaw, that made me want to go in. You can't say it was simply skin factor. I'm gay. I actually like the character.)

    So, i'm going to end this with one of your own quotes, because it just seems so right!
    "It's painfully clear that you aren't reading posts and just want to read your own words and recline softly in smug self-satisfaction."

    BANG, BANG, and, oh, BANG

  • GaslightGaslight Registered User regular
    This does not end well for you.

    1Slimus.jpg
  • Goose!Goose! Yeah I wrote that Its called I Wanna Rock Your Body (till the break of dawn)Registered User regular
    Guys the only way your arguments about violence in games that are on the TV would be relevant is if they were allowing violence to happen at booths, live and in person, while banning booth babes. Because stuff happening in the games is not the same as people who are pandering in one of the worst ways (sex sells, but it shouldn't be encouraged).

    They're not censoring the game. You could have gone in and played Lollipop Chainsaw (or watched the video or whatever it was, I wasn't paying attention as the premise seemed awfully stupid to me). What they are doing is taking the booth babe out, which the community has overwhelmingly supported, because it makes people uncomfortable. This does include families with young children in the sample of "people that are uncomfortable,"

  • Bendery It Like BeckhamBendery It Like Beckham Hopeless Registered User regular
    I think the ruling was fine, and also that some people are missing a few key points.

    1 main problem I care to bring up is that while yes, booth babes may draw people to your booth, how many people do they turn away? I'm in the turn away category, I like women, don't like scantily clad booth babes trying to shill a game. It makes me uncomfortable and I just wanna check out the game on its own merits.

    PAXs "Family friendly" idea, in my opinion, implies more of a "safe environment for everyone attending". If something makes you uncomfortable at the convention, you probably wont go. As an example I've lived in San Diego all my life and don't go to comic-con anymore because the community and convention environment is hostile, sexist, and rude. Porn stars lining up to show you their pictures and get you to subscribe to their website, booth babes getting way to close and asking you for your email and contact info etc, even fliers for escort services get handed out. It wasn't like this 6 years ago, but it got worse and worse with more and more booth babes every year.

    I'm not trying to create hyperbole here, but PAX is probably the one convention that I've gone to where I have felt comfortable randomly talking to people and just hanging out. This is due to the environment that is strictly enforced of "don't be a dick, we're all friends, and this is a community event, not a sales/hype machine".

    Say what you will about how it's unfair, but if the rule doesn't get enforced then there is no reason to have it. The fact that she was just asked to please cover up and enjoy the rest of the con is more than reasonable, it wasn't entirely her fault, and that is hardly a punishment.

    headphones2.jpg
  • TheJackoNerdTheJackoNerd Registered User
    edited April 2012
    jdixon1972 wrote: »
    You're perfectly fine with someone cosplaying in an outfit that shows more skin than some softcore porn titles (essentially being unpayed promoters of the game), but let a company pay someone to do the same thing, and then suddenly its so wrong?

    Sorry, but have you even read the rest of the topic? The reason it's frowned upon to use 'booth babes' to represent a game is because it's just attracting people in for the boobs, and not the game itself.

    jdixon1972 wrote: »
    I'm sure Jerry and Mike are already familiar with the character design. If they take offense to the costume, the should equally take offense with the way the character is designed in the game itself. Therefore, they shouldn't even be letting Lollipop Chainsaw be displayed on the floor in the first place.

    Please don't bring Jerry and Mike into this, they didn't say anything themselves about it. They probably weren't even aware of the situation at the time.

    TheJackoNerd on
    sig.gif

    Going to PAX East 2013/14 is my biggest goal right now. I plan to achieve it...
  • ottoman673ottoman673 Registered User
    jdixon1972 wrote: »
    You're perfectly fine with someone cosplaying in an outfit that shows more skin than some softcore porn titles (essentially being unpayed promoters of the game), but let a company pay someone to do the same thing, and then suddenly its so wrong?

    Sorry, but have you even read the rest of the topic? The reason it's frowned upon to use 'booth babes' to represent a game is because it's just attracting people in for the boobs, and not the game itself.

    jdixon1972 wrote: »
    I'm sure Jerry and Mike are already familiar with the character design. If they take offense to the costume, the should equally take offense with the way the character is designed in the game itself. Therefore, they shouldn't even be letting Lollipop Chainsaw be displayed on the floor in the first place.

    Please don't bring Jerry and Mike into this, they didn't say anything themselves about it. They probably weren't even aware of the situation at the time.

    So then spec ops should've been thrown off the floor too, right? It seems as if they were marketing their game with extreme gore and visceral war realism that makes people uncomfortable, right? If we're going to turn this into that argument, then the only games that should ever be on the floor are e-t rated titles with no inferrence of sexuality or realistic violence, because immorality is still immoral, regardless of whether its just a costume or an explicitly displayed death/torture/likewise.

    Also, is this topic not bumping up to the top when people reply to it for you guys too? I had to subscribe to receive notifications.

    PAX East 2012 Checklist: [x] 3 Day Pass [x] Time off Work [x] Flight [x] Hotel
  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    Look. Cosplay was a way for people to show how much they liked a game/characters in a game. so people showed up to conventions dressed as their favorite characters, a nerdy thing to do. No problem here, be pikachu all you want.

    Then, as it gets bigger and more mainstream, it's being perverted into this cosplay=scantily clad women. If you want to have sexy characters in your game, no big deal, I can avoid your booth. I can also understand regular attendies wanting to dress up because, hey, that's how they enjoy the con themselves, and they're just as much a consumer as I am.

    I'm totally fine with drawing the line at paying people to promote your game by standing there. I don't care that that's what the character looks like. I don't want to see spartan 300-style men wandering around either. PAX has always been about sharing nerd culture with people who are like each other. It's about sharing an experience. If I was being loud and people complained about me, I'd expect to get removed, too.

    She was paid to attend the convention in a skimpy outfit. I don't care if she enjoyed it or not. Either come as an unpaid person--a regular attendie--or face the consequences of trying to violate the rules.

  • vttymvttym Registered User regular
    The only thing these 3 pages of discussion has proved is that, as a society, we continue to be desensitized to violence, and hypersensitive towards sex.

  • Lindsey LohanLindsey Lohan Registered User regular
    I don't know why this debate is even happening - the PA community decided we don't want models selling us on games. We don't want E3. We don't want tradeshow style displays. We want to be about the games. Costumes are great, but their purpose can't be "come look at this hot girl". It's simple and shouldn't be up for re-vote just because a few guys are ticked that she had to cover up. If Joystiq or any other site whining want a no-holds-barred conference with booth babes, obnoxious antics, etc - they can start their own thing. PAX was started for for us and we decided not to have our booths cluttered with "come see our hot women".

    My wife was really impressed with the variety of people at PAX, in terms of age, gender and race. This rule was created by our community which values inclusion and a safe place to play and PAX should be applauded for NOT taking the easy route of anything goes.

    steam_sig.png
  • belligerentbelligerent Registered User regular
    vttym wrote: »
    The only thing these 3 pages of discussion has proved is that, as a society, we continue to be desensitized to violence, and hypersensitive towards sex.

    Pretty sure you're not allowed to bring weapons into the expo, and really really really not allowed to be violent at all.

    in fact, there are hard and fast rules about cosplay weapons as well. So no, you're completely wrong.

    No one is complaining about the sexual content in the game.

  • vttymvttym Registered User regular
    vttym wrote: »
    The only thing these 3 pages of discussion has proved is that, as a society, we continue to be desensitized to violence, and hypersensitive towards sex.

    Pretty sure you're not allowed to bring weapons into the expo, and really really really not allowed to be violent at all.

    in fact, there are hard and fast rules about cosplay weapons as well. So no, you're completely wrong.

    No one is complaining about the sexual content in the game.

    Is there an established sarcasm emoticon yet for the internet? I feel like I needed one now.

  • shenjshenj Registered User
    Let's be realistic, the gender demographics at PAX skew probably 90 - 95% male, so obviously a scantily clad female is going cause far more problems with horndogs that can't control themselves that a scantily clad men would. What would a scantily clad man look like anyways? I certainly didn't see any at the show.

    http://www.destructoid.com/pax-mr-destructoid-shows-off-his-muscles-225412.phtml

    There was a shirtless man wearing the Destructoid helmet. I'm not sure if he was paid by Destructoid, but according to the link above, Destructoid was at least aware of and sponsoring his shirtlessness:

    "Every PAX we let the community wear the Mr. Destructoid helmet. This year for PAX East we've given the helmet duties to community member Jacob "N7" Harder. Jacob also happens to be a professional body builder (seriously) so we let him loose on the show floor without a shirt! "

    Here's a pic of him with Mike Krahulik:
    http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/photo-m.phtml?post_key=225467&photo_key=220031

    And...I don't know if this is the same guy, but here's a pic of a Destructoid robot on the show floor wearing just the robot head, briefs, and sneakers:
    http://www.destructoid.com/elephant/photo-m.phtml?photo_key=220091&post_key=225467

    When asked if this guy (guys?) were similarly asked to put on a hoodie or cover up, Mike Krahulik responded, "Not that I know of."

  • azuravianazuravian Registered User regular
    I really had no opinion on this matter until I read through some of these posts. It seems that the people supporting PAX in their decision keep going back to the policy that the community voted on. It's a good policy. The problem I see is that, in this case, nothing being done was against policy. I don't have the link to the original results, but Ben Kuchera (who PA has since hired) summed them up here back in 2010.

    Here is a quote from that article:
    6,313 people took the poll, with 60 percent of respondents either liking or loving the ban on booth babes. Only 12 percent of respondents hated the ban, putting public opinion firmly in the anti-babe area. The major addition to the policy stipulates that the models need to be "educated about the product," and "partial nudity" has been banned. Models can dress up like characters from games and wear revealing clothing, as long as it's true to the original character.

    From what people are saying, Nigri was educated about the product, was not displaying nudity (partial or otherwise) and was dressed like a character from the game that is wearing revealing clothing.

    Someone mentioned that WB should have checked with PAX first regarding the outfit. Maybe they should have, but my question is "What would the response have been?" The outfit as it stands is in line with PAX policy.

  • ottoman673ottoman673 Registered User
    Let's be realistic, the gender demographics at PAX skew probably 90 - 95% male, so obviously a scantily clad female is going cause far more problems with horndogs that can't control themselves that a scantily clad men would.p

    Let's be realistic,
    if you can't control your sexual desires in public, to the point of seeing an attractive woman would make you lose control, i suggest you check out of society for awhile...

    PAX East 2012 Checklist: [x] 3 Day Pass [x] Time off Work [x] Flight [x] Hotel
  • ransimransim Registered User regular
    azuravian wrote: »
    I really had no opinion on this matter until I read through some of these posts. It seems that the people supporting PAX in their decision keep going back to the policy that the community voted on. It's a good policy. The problem I see is that, in this case, nothing being done was against policy. I don't have the link to the original results, but Ben Kuchera (who PA has since hired) summed them up here back in 2010.

    Here is a quote from that article:
    6,313 people took the poll, with 60 percent of respondents either liking or loving the ban on booth babes. Only 12 percent of respondents hated the ban, putting public opinion firmly in the anti-babe area. The major addition to the policy stipulates that the models need to be "educated about the product," and "partial nudity" has been banned. Models can dress up like characters from games and wear revealing clothing, as long as it's true to the original character.

    From what people are saying, Nigri was educated about the product, was not displaying nudity (partial or otherwise) and was dressed like a character from the game that is wearing revealing clothing.

    Someone mentioned that WB should have checked with PAX first regarding the outfit. Maybe they should have, but my question is "What would the response have been?" The outfit as it stands is in line with PAX policy.

    Just my two cents, but given she looks like she's about to have a wardrobe malfunction in that second outfit i would say it definitely constitutes as partial nudity. The bottom stops barely above the vajayjay and I think the only think keeping her from a nip slip is black magic.

    The issue appears to be with the pink outfit which brought entirely to much attention to her so that even after she changed the damage was already done.

    PAX East 2014 Checklist: Hotel [X] Travel Approved [X] BYOC Pass [ ] 3-day PAX pass [X]
    East Buttoneering? - Buttons in progress...
    brigadebanner2013.png
  • RandorammaRandoramma Registered User regular
    Thank you Penny Arcade for keeping the events family friendly. When I bring my young daughter I'm relieved that she can experience gaming without T & A. This goes for me too. I understand that you cant control everyone participant at the expo, but I appreciate that you set a standard for your vendors to adhere to and that you stand by that standard. I also realize that you will be flamed by participants who enjoy what seeing these costumes give them, but I also appreciate that they can experience these things at many other places such as AVN expo, ect. Cosplay is about more than just the jiggles and so is gaming.

    PAX Prime '09 '10 '12 '13 '14
  • FrugusFrugus Podcaster Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    XX55XX wrote: »
    ransim wrote: »
    From what I heard, she even wore the same
    ransim wrote: »
    XX55XX wrote: »
    I read about it and saw her at the booth, and I agree. If I recall, there were actual booth babes during last year's PAX, but perhaps they banned them again this year.

    There were complaints about the girls last year, specifically I think the Duke Nukem girls so they did another survey and the community pretty much affirmed that they're not okay with the skimpy outfits. People were complaining and PA responded to those complaints by asking her to change or leave.

    I don't really see the controversy. If parents are required to agree to allow their children to view/demo mature rated games then the same should apply to booth cosplay. If the outfit is obviously skimpy, like the two in that article it should be locked behind the same restrictions as the mature rated games or not there at all.

    The issue here, is that the first costume is not what I'd consider "skimpy", and was apparently well and good for the entirety of friday at the convention. It was also fine for PAX Prime I believe. The second (pink) costume, could be considered too skimpy, so she returned in the original costume (which was OK friday, and at previous cons) and was told it wasn't now. This is the hypocritical nature.

    Its not about me or you individually though.

    The community as a whole voted on the issue and decided against skimpy.

    Your definition of skimpy may be different then for others, but the point remains, they acted on complaints they received about something what was bordering on going against something that was decided on by the community.

    Its not hypocritical, people saw it Friday, complained, and on Saturday it was acted on.

    I saw quite a few skimpy cosplays here and there on Saturday...


    1- I wholeheartedly agree with Ransim
    2- I think Lolipop girl knew very well what she was doing and what she was trying to accomplish (if not her, then the people she represented). She/they did get a warning, they chose to keep on going with the theme, they got burned.
    3- Girlfriend and I had a discussion about that. Why would cosplayers be left alone (then again, there must be limits there as well) and companies be more scrutinized? Simple. Cosplayers are there for fun, the exhibitors are trying to sell, and the community has voted a long time ago that they don't agree with these kinds of business methods. Khoo went on to say that this is also a family type event, so I'm sure that if cosplayers went overboard, they would have been warned as well, but the fact is that both represent different situations, and thus are subject to different rules. I don't have an answer about cosplayers, but personally speaking I don't like it when a vendor tries to sell me anything by showing as much cleavage as possible. Not cool.

    Frugus on
  • azuravianazuravian Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    ransim wrote: »
    azuravian wrote: »
    I really had no opinion on this matter until I read through some of these posts. It seems that the people supporting PAX in their decision keep going back to the policy that the community voted on. It's a good policy. The problem I see is that, in this case, nothing being done was against policy. I don't have the link to the original results, but Ben Kuchera (who PA has since hired) summed them up here back in 2010.

    Here is a quote from that article:
    6,313 people took the poll, with 60 percent of respondents either liking or loving the ban on booth babes. Only 12 percent of respondents hated the ban, putting public opinion firmly in the anti-babe area. The major addition to the policy stipulates that the models need to be "educated about the product," and "partial nudity" has been banned. Models can dress up like characters from games and wear revealing clothing, as long as it's true to the original character.

    From what people are saying, Nigri was educated about the product, was not displaying nudity (partial or otherwise) and was dressed like a character from the game that is wearing revealing clothing.

    Someone mentioned that WB should have checked with PAX first regarding the outfit. Maybe they should have, but my question is "What would the response have been?" The outfit as it stands is in line with PAX policy.

    Just my two cents, but given she looks like she's about to have a wardrobe malfunction in that second outfit i would say it definitely constitutes as partial nudity. The bottom stops barely above the vajayjay and I think the only think keeping her from a nip slip is black magic.

    The issue appears to be with the pink outfit which brought entirely to much attention to her so that even after she changed the damage was already done.

    Oops, maybe I should have clarified. I personally think the pink outfit is a bit much. Disagree that it is partial nudity. Partial nudity has long been used by the movie industry to refer to showing a quick glimpse of a naughty bit (also they usually refer to a bare ass as partial nudity).

    However, what I was referring to was the fact that her previous costume also suddenly became "against the rules". I'm not referring here to the supposed hypocrisy of allowing it one day and not the next. I understand that it can take time to enforce the rules after receiving complaints. I'm referring to the fact that at some point (doesn't matter when) an outfit that I can't imagine anyone saying is "Partial Nudity" (the cheerleading one) was not allowed. This seems to go against the stated policy as chosen by the community.

    azuravian on
  • BeechsackBeechsack Registered User
    This is a trend I expected, and will likely continue. If a game shown at PAX has an attractive female, you'll see a hired cosplayer at their booth in that costume. In my mind it's no different than the traditional booth babe, but I'm not the one who makes that call.

    Nigri's second costume clearly crossed the line of decorum for the event. Heck, that would be turning heads at AVN. Had she kept the first costume for the duration this is a non-issue.

    Khoo handled this as best he could. No way they can let that second costume stand. Anyone in the building wearing that would be asked to leave.

  • Goose!Goose! Yeah I wrote that Its called I Wanna Rock Your Body (till the break of dawn)Registered User regular
    Honestly, I think if they got enough complaints about a particular cosplayer, they would probably ask that person (should they be able to locate them) to cover up as well.

  • Moe FwackyMoe Fwacky Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    We are not about to have another booth babe thread. We've done this before and they always end up terrible. Here's the skinny, people. Some people dislike booth babes (enough that a survey put on by PA has encouraged them to keep the ban of booth babes at the show). Some people like them. The end.

    For more on this, look at gabe's post today about that and other things.
    http://penny-arcade.com/2012/04/09/my-big-pax-post

13»
This discussion has been closed.