@Amb Motive

[Neant]

I don't entirely agree with censorship but I wouldn't go so far as to mock it. My belief (which I will express, as this is a contemplation corner) is that everything has its time and place. I, for instance, wouldn't be able to finish my curry if there was a person vomiting on TV, it would put me off too much. I'm pretty sure I'd struggle if there was nudity going on, too, though I won't stretch into detail for that purpose. I also am a strong believer that children under 10 (or thereabouts) should have the world hidden from them, it can be damaging to someone of such an age to witness anything which they cannot cope with, for example if you expose a child to violence when they are young, it will give them the impression that it is normal... That's where inherited behaviours come from, after all. For that purpose, I strongly encourage censorship. I can see where you're coming from though, this is a very different case, and although I probably wouldn't have deleted his posts had it been my forum, I don't object to whoever did so doing so, since it is Jonatas' livelihood which is at stake, he's got an income and he wants it protecting, that's just business sense. I mean, if you join a forum and immediately get insulted by someone, you're probably not gonna stick around for long... I think that's the good bit about XB though, the community here is good enough that we can, and I use the term loosely scare off those who we don't want here, and warmly welcome those who we do want. I'm not saying it is nor should be a selective community, I'm just saying there are certain personalities which we can do without, and Amb's is certainly somewhere around the top of the list.

You know, I'd probably have booted myself out by now if I were you. I can be incredibly annoying sometimes, but I guess I probably find you as annoying as you find me at times, the main difference being I guess I literally have nothing to lose here, whereas you've some responsibility to be polite & courteous since this is your product, which you're trying to sell... I do think the people here see you as being gracefully ungraceful at times though, and I think you only seem to gain their respect for that. It's a difficult concept to grasp, and even more difficult to become, but I think you've done it.

I must say I do not quite understand how the idea of censorship is compatible with TV-production. It is widely known that most TV-producers map out customer satisfaction through ratings. Ergo: good ratings = good show or bad ratings = bad show. So... why on earth would a small group of people (the producers) have a guess at (before hand) what details will what details and will not be liked by a significantly larger group (the viewers), when this is already apart of the of the selecting process? And no I'm not talking about censorship I'm talking about a little business idea called "trying-to-earn-my-living-through-appealing-to-the-general-public". If the viewers want to watch a uncomfortable mixture of shit, vomit and nudity on TV (which, by the judge of the stuff that's on TV in my country, is the case) wouldn't it be extremely counterproductive to censor parts that offend a minority but appeal to the majority? Even if it would be a case of the TV-producers not liking a show which generates good ratings, I do not think they'd give a flying fuck (seeing as TV-producers generally (at least in the western world) are commercialized). Furthermore if people for some reason would stop want to watch repulsive programs that would become evident in the ratings and program would therefor be removed. This is, as previously stated, the general process of TV-production. It's efficient - both economically for the producers, but the viewers tend to get what they want. If you do want to watch vomit and nudity there are many simple solutions - one would be to stop watching that specific program. I myself agree with you - I wouldn't want to watch someone vomit... ever. However I would much rather have the viewers decide what they want to watch than letting one person/a small group of people decide. Also: if stupid people want to watch stupid shit - then for the love of god let em'!

Censorship is retarded. I feel that if someone has something they want to say, they should not only be able to say it, but have to live with looking like a moron if they knowingly provided bullshit information trying to increase their E-PEEN. And it goes both ways. If someone has a legitimate problem with my software or a legitimate criticism, I let them say it. I don't stop people from saying "iBot" or "Redbot." The only thing that gets deleted is meaningless spam and harmful posts, such as viruses or scams. And that's how it will always stay.

In-fucking-deed.

[XtrmJosh]

I must say I do not quite understand how the idea of censorship is compatible with TV-production. It is widely known that most TV-producers map out customer satisfaction through ratings. Ergo: good ratings = good show or bad ratings = bad show. So... why on earth would a small group of people (the producers) have a guess at (before hand) what details will what details and will not be liked by a significantly larger group (the viewers), when this is already apart of the of the selecting process? And no I'm not talking about censorship I'm talking about a little business idea called "trying-to-earn-my-living-through-appealing-to-the-general-public". If the viewers want to watch a uncomfortable mixture of shit, vomit and nudity on TV (which, by the judge of the stuff that's on TV in my country, is the case) wouldn't it be extremely counterproductive to censor parts that offend a minority but appeal to the majority? Even if it would be a case of the TV-producers not liking a show which generates good ratings, I do not think they'd give a flying fuck (seeing as TV-producers generally (at least in the western world) are commercialized). Furthermore if people for some reason would stop want to watch repulsive programs that would become evident in the ratings and program would therefor be removed. This is, as previously stated, the general process of TV-production. It's efficient - both economically for the producers, but the viewers tend to get what they want. If you do want to watch vomit and nudity there are many simple solutions - one would be to stop watching that specific program. I myself agree with you - I wouldn't want to watch someone vomit... ever. However I would much rather have the viewers decide what they want to watch than letting one person/a small group of people decide. Also: if stupid people want to watch stupid shit - then for the love of god let em'!

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my rant, always nice to have a good debate.

I can see what you're saying, that if people want to watch others vomiting at 6PM, then it should be acceptable. I have no objection to this, and that's why I don't object to the existance of channel 4 (If you've ever watched TV in England for any extended time period, you'll know why... It's basically programs like big brother, Derren Brown & his magical psycology, mixed with programs like bizarre E.R (following patients through their hospital visit), 16 and pregnant (following a 16 year old through her experience of being pregnant, including all the messy scenes which you wouldn't want on display whilst eating), and a fair few other disgusting things, including animal hospital, which has 1 5 minute slot a week of a random animal giving birth, then there is "sun, sex, and suspicious parents", which is just teens going on holiday getting pissed then vomiting everywhere... They just seem to air anything that said minority wants to see. The mainstream channels, BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, ITV2, ITV3, are all governed by a much stricter authority, and BBC especially since they are funded by the TV license (to watch TV here you must buy a TV license, which costs some £115 a year, even if you don't watch BBC channels). I think the viewers do make it perfectly clear though, channels like BBC are displaying high quality ethical material, with the occasional spree of violence / sex, which is pre-warned constantly and has messages saying "If you are of a nervous disposition, discretion is advised", etc. They tread very carefully.

I think the point also still stands that channels such as CBBC (a childrens channel, airing from 6AM to 7PM or so, aimed at children age 4 to 14 ish) should not display violence, racism, extremism, or anything of that nature, and that before the watershed at 9PM (when the BBC are allowed to display violence, sex, racism, etc) it should be kept to gentle fart jokes and the occasional scene involving a side boob or no more than 6 inches of thigh.

[Xencrypted]

Channel 4 sounds messed up :P shows like that are the reason i haven't sat down and watched tv for more than 5 mins in years and years :P

[Fleet]

Someone get this poor fellow some vaseline!

[Xencrypted]

@Fleet I lol'd

[Luls]

It's a difficult concept to grasp, and even more difficult to become, but I think you've done it.

Knowing how much you two don't get along, that is a huge complement. Holy crap.


<3

[Maximum Adam]

7 year's of the first half of the first year, cuz the dumbass can't pass it

[padj]

@XtrmJosh Channel 4 brought us Brass Eye which is phenomenal. On the other hand, it brought us shameless.

[XtrmJosh]

@XtrmJosh Channel 4 brought us Brass Eye which is phenomenal. On the other hand, it brought us shameless.

Shameless was amazing for the first 2 seasons, after that it just turned into an uncensored version of Eastenders, based in Manchester.

[sausting]

shameless the UK version? have you had a look at the remade US version?