Author Topic: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"  (Read 1537 times)

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2015, 02:47:36 AM »
Camel toes, ass shots, and bouncing boobies are the hallmarks of any great fighter. Lol

This is true.

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2015, 04:03:33 AM »
Okay I thought my subversive link to video. Title to thread and definition of the word and topic the two you tubers couldn't grasp was enough of an indication


But for those of you who think I did not clearly state my "disconnect" here we go.


My knee jerk reaction to the video is the gull Isn displayed in his argument that Capcom isn't censoring their game because "it's in beta" and "hey can do what ever they want to their game" with a dash of "learn the definition of the word censorship".


At most Pat got it with the use of the term self censorship but quickly backed down as Ian is the alpha in their relationship.


Although I agree with Ian's point that why the creator and publisher can do as they please with their IP what is being down is a DIRECT response to public opinion in the form of censorship.


Now would I have gone the route of be littering people interested in this IP by saying oh it's ass shots and crotch shoots being censored who cares if it's a big deal to you then you are immature or have bigger issues.

No. For me it is not what is being censored. It is THAT censorship is occurring at all. Personally I am tired of a minority of the market dictating to the masses what is and isn't allowed in the US. What bothers me more is that those who are demanding these changes with cries of decisions and so forth are not even the target audience. Let along are these same people the ones who would have bought Capcoms game should it have been the most PC game in existence.

So why get on ended knee for a sub group that isn't interested in your product.


Would it make seance for me to go and boycot the next chick flick movie because there wasn't enough gun fights and explosions?  No. I was never the target audience. What do you think that hurt the sales of Magic Miek XL? Or the Sisterhood of the Travaling Pants?

But yeah. There is a more details point of view and response to this video.


Also I'll get right right you on that pod cast video where I make no mistakes.


But first I need to generate a following earn "blank" income to call it a job and pedal my wares as well as be invited to various expos and conventions as a public speaker and export on video games.

MrBroadway

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2015, 06:17:26 PM »
This is stupid.

SignOfZeta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8497
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2015, 07:11:36 PM »
In general, "censorship" is usually in reference (as your definition says) to prohibitions of an official capacity. Not "official" as in "Official NASCAR Merchandise" but official as in legal. There has been no legal censorship of this work. It hasn't even been released yet. Things change during development and until someone explains otherwise there is no way to know why they made these changes. Maybe they decided they wanted to make sure all the arcades in Abu Dabi would buy their standups. Maybe the director's wife bitched him out for it or maybe he just woke up one day and said, "f*ck, I was way too horny when I created that camera motion. What am I, twelve?" and made it less creepy and disgusting completely of his own volition. Artists honestly do this ALL THE TIME. Its been going on since the middle ages, verified by xray and contemporary accounts.

Honestly, they can censor the whole POS game out of existence for all I care, I just don't quite get the specific accusation you are making. Did he say something contradictory to your defintion? I don't see it.

Full disclosure: I would probably be a bit more on your side (assuming your stance is that you wish the twats were back in full frame purely for reasons of artistic integrity) if not for the fact that the subject matter is just so...low. I mean...f*ck, who gives a shit? Everything in this game is so sorta...slimy looking. A little too Heavy Metal Magazine for my tastes. Aesthetics originally created in the abstract due to hardware limitations now have just way WAY too much detail. Few would complain of Mita's butt slap in the original 240p fixed camera iteration. The camera drone goes full macro extension on some of this new shit though. Can you sue a drone for sexual assault? I don't need to see the string coming out of Chun Li's tampon for f*ck's sake.

Also: I've been an online acquaintance of Ian's for many years, long before he was rich and famous. I don't know him super well, and have never met him in person, but I know him better than I know any of the bastards on this forum. I didn't even know he was rich and famous until this podcast had been going for a while. I sometimes listen to it (I never watch it. Never.), and frankly, I don't understand why people like it so much. Its really long and way too mainstream and pisses away a lot of time on "news" type crap and superhero/WWE bullshit that I can't imagine anyone in the world caring about who doesn't already have their own podcast...which apparently the entire audience does because why are we talking about Youtube revenue streams like this was a 10 year old episode of TWiT? So in other words, I vouch for him but not really the show, which is just another one of those shows I don't like but with slightly better sound quality. That said, I don't get the weird situation where people, apparently, hate watch podcasts like they were Sharknado sequels. The whole idea is weird. If you don't like it, just watch one of the 50,000 other otakutopical wankfests going on somewhere on the internet. Or, preferably, just stop watching any of that shit and do something you legitimately enjoy.



Okay I thought my subversive link to video. Title to thread and definition of the word and topic the two you tubers couldn't grasp was enough of an indication


But for those of you who think I did not clearly state my "disconnect" here we go.


My knee jerk reaction to the video is the gull Isn displayed in his argument that Capcom isn't censoring their game because "it's in beta" and "hey can do what ever they want to their game" with a dash of "learn the definition of the word censorship".


At most Pat got it with the use of the term self censorship but quickly backed down as Ian is the alpha in their relationship.


Although I agree with Ian's point that why the creator and publisher can do as they please with their IP what is being down is a DIRECT response to public opinion in the form of censorship.


Now would I have gone the route of be littering people interested in this IP by saying oh it's ass shots and crotch shoots being censored who cares if it's a big deal to you then you are immature or have bigger issues.

No. For me it is not what is being censored. It is THAT censorship is occurring at all. Personally I am tired of a minority of the market dictating to the masses what is and isn't allowed in the US. What bothers me more is that those who are demanding these changes with cries of decisions and so forth are not even the target audience. Let along are these same people the ones who would have bought Capcoms game should it have been the most PC game in existence.

So why get on ended knee for a sub group that isn't interested in your product.


Would it make seance for me to go and boycot the next chick flick movie because there wasn't enough gun fights and explosions?  No. I was never the target audience. What do you think that hurt the sales of Magic Miek XL? Or the Sisterhood of the Travaling Pants?

But yeah. There is a more details point of view and response to this video.


Also I'll get right right you on that pod cast video where I make no mistakes.


But first I need to generate a following earn "blank" income to call it a job and pedal my wares as well as be invited to various expos and conventions as a public speaker and export on video games.

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2015, 07:28:57 PM »
Wow zeta. You really are white knighting the shit out of this.


Okay let's see if I can tackle your points. 




If you even had any


1) I don't care about the game in question.


Ok so who gives a f*ck?

2). I am Ian's "internet friend"

Well it shows bias.

3). Why are we talking about a pod cast you hate?

Who said I hated it as a whole?  I had issue with one episodes lack of consistantcy more or less

4). But but internet monies.

Once again who the f*ck cares?  Ian is mostly a lackey and unwilling (at one point) cohost to Pat. I'd like. It more to a guy who doesn't care about the role he plays but got use to sitting in front of a web cam and saying the first thing that comes to mind while at times bitching about his day job bitching about the average customer and bitching about his rise in notoriety through in part to his internet presence that has afforded him a measure of fame income and explore that he fell ass backwards into that other people try with all their best to create for themselves. Granted I honestly do not feel it is something he wanted just put up with.

5). What their a fith?  Oh the used and source of a definition of the word censorship.

Dude honestly it was the first f*cking definition that came up when you typed the word in Google. Take it for what you want. You got beef with a definition talk to google. Or my use of Google it's really your call.



Bottom line Seta you have shown your hand that what really pissed you off is that you felt defensive over a internet friend. Your disconnect is your inability to separate criticism and personal feelings you had because Ian's name was on the title of this thread.


If it had been any other commentator other then your internet friend eithe rnobf*cks would be given by you or you would possibly have had a different perspective.

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2015, 07:31:53 PM »
I hate auto correct I hate that I use to fat thumbs to type and I am so not correcting any of this.


My past shitty post on this forum and every other forum in existence shall attest to this.

SignOfZeta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8497
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2015, 05:18:21 AM »
My problem isn't that I have bias (Sorry, I know this is an issue. I'll try to never meet anyone from now on. That should fix this problem.) The problem isn't the Internet's definition of censorship. The problem is that you started this thread with a post that has very little original content in it and I don't understand WTF you were talking about.

You seem to be saying that Ian doesn't know the definition of the word, but you're going to have to explain that somewhat if you want me to leave you alone on that. Are you saying he doesn't know what censorship is? That's the question I've asked you like five times now. If there is a problem with Ian's definition of censorship...let us hear it. It took you five minutes to watch that dumb video and you spent five seconds defaming it. Don't be surprised if someone asks for clarification because I have a much better  idea of what these Phish flakes are talking about than you. Me knowing one of them might have something to with it, maybe that's all of it, but maybe you made a stupid post.

Btw, don't worry about spelling and such. I'm not one of those a$$holes. I do get on people for not having their situation under control plot-wise.

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #22 on: November 28, 2015, 07:58:14 AM »
Well I am at a loss to provide you the means to grasp my intent.



If you cannot understand that Ian's statement that what Capcon is doing is not a form of censorship and that people calling it censorship should learn the definition.

And my assertion that the definition is a text book example CENSORSHIP. /'d that Ian is the one who needs to learn the definition is to hard of a concept for you to grasp. Well I am sorry I don't know how to explain it at the level you would need.


Maybe you disagree with the "internets" definition of the word censorship?

Let's give you various definitions and you tell me how Capcom's decision to perform self censorship and you tell me how the use of the word censorship is incorrect. And YOU tell me what word best decries the actions that Capcom has taken on their IP.


censorship
Think you know censorship? Quiz yourself:

ASSESSMENT: 100 POINTS
Which of the following would most likely be considered censorship?
promoting a bestseller in a book store
editing a book for grammatical errors
banning a book from being taught in school
writing a book containing controversial content
Add to List...   Learn It   Thesaurus Share It
Censorship blocks something from being read, heard, or seen. If you've ever heard the sound of bleeping when someone is speaking on television, that's censorship.

Censorship
1. The denial of freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
2. The review of books, movies, etc., to prohibit publication and distribution, usually for reasons of morality or state security.
--Oran's Dictionary of Law

Censorship: official restriction of any expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order.
--Encyclopedia.Com

Censorship - the prevention of publication, transmission, or exhibition of material considered undesirable for the general public to possess or be exposed to.
--Fast Times' Political Dictionary (Fast Times is "a nonpartisan publication on contemporary world affairs & media with no political, ideological, or religious affiliation of any kind.")

Censorship: the cyclical suppression, banning, expurgation, or editing by an individual, institution, group or government that enforce or influence its decision against members of the public -- of any written or pictorial materials which that individual, institution, group or government deems obscene and "utterly" without redeeming social value," as determined by "contemporary community standards."
--Chuck Stone, Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of North Carolina



geise

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3541
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2015, 08:10:38 AM »
Karin's return is all that matters
This.

Now about the censorship with SF5, it's rediculous.  This is nowhere near as bad as say...Metal Gear Solid V and the character Quiet.  Not that I personally care.  Censorship is a little out of hand with "skin showing" and tend to forget how the rating systems should be working.  There should be no way that a Mika ass slap should warrant an M rating for SF5, and if it gets taken out of the US version expect all the people seieienbu talked about to be importing. 

SephirothTNH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2015, 09:27:07 AM »
...if it gets taken out of the US version...

That's not what's happening though.  At least as far as I understand it.  There isn't going to be a Japanese "ass slap" version and a US "no slap" version.  During development there was a decision to remove the ass slap.  I don't personally know why the decision was made; I'm not following the SF5 development. 

Ian's argument seems to be that this is just part of the development process and not censorship.  If you are a game dev and for your own reasons decide to cover some skin up or remove some blood during beta is that censorship?  If your game has an open beta and people can see the change does that make it censorship?   

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #25 on: November 28, 2015, 09:44:30 AM »
...if it gets taken out of the US version...

That's not what's happening though.  At least as far as I understand it.  There isn't going to be a Japanese "ass slap" version and a US "no slap" version.  During development there was a decision to remove the ass slap.  I don't personally know why the decision was made; I'm not following the SF5 development. 

Ian's argument seems to be that this is just part of the development process and not censorship.  If you are a game dev and for your own reasons decide to cover some skin up or remove some blood during beta is that censorship?  If your game has an open beta and people can see the change does that make it censorship?   

This is my point. Which I feel Ian and Pat did a poor job of discussing.

Frankly I view it as self censorship as Capcom made the choice to remove objectable content then on that bases alone it is a form of self censorship.


Take another fighter that posed similar censorship. When mortal combat and DC had their cross over. The joker was to have a finishing move that DC requested was removed as their character where on a no fatalities list.

But we all saw beta footage of the fatality prior.

And the fatality remained but the "death" part had the camera pan away to Joker thus leaving the death ambiguous.

Then we saw that same fatality recycled and restored in the break away hit MK9.

To me that was a form of self censorship that occurred during beta that to my knowledge was something. Both gamers, developers, and gaming journalist agreed and stated was censorship.

SephirothTNH

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #26 on: November 28, 2015, 11:31:15 AM »
This is my point.  Which I feel Ian and Pat did a poor job of discussing.
I'm not so sure you read me correctly then.  Going back to your original post/point; I wasn't agreeing that Ian is wrong.  Nor trying to prove him right for that matter. 
Frankly I view it as self censorship as Capcom made the choice to remove objectable content then on that bases alone it is a form of self censorship.
  I'm not so sure.  I've personally not read any facts about why this was removed.  I've read lots of theories but I've not seen any proof that this was removed because it was objectionable.  If capcom changed it because they wanted: to alter the art direction, to change the characters persona, alter how players perceived her, make the character more serious etc.  I would argue that it wasn't censorship.  It's just changes during development.  Only if they removed it to please someone else , ie not capcom, then it would be censorship.  Be that users, ratings board, overly PC media etc. 
Take another fighter that posed similar censorship. When mortal combat and DC had their cross over. The joker was to have a finishing move that DC requested was removed as their character where on a no fatalities list.

But we all saw beta footage of the fatality prior.

And the fatality remained but the "death" part had the camera pan away to Joker thus leaving the death ambiguous.

Then we saw that same fatality recycled and restored in the break away hit MK9.

To me that was a form of self censorship that occurred during beta that to my knowledge was something. Both gamers, developers, and gaming journalist agreed and stated was censorship.
This is different though.  DC wanted the content removed and so Midway obliged and censored it.  There is no evidence that this is what happened here.  At least not that I'm aware of.  It's quite possible it was done to appease the ESRB or the overly PC but there is no evidence of it. 
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 11:32:56 AM by SephirothTNH »

Medic_wheat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2854
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2015, 12:03:20 PM »
True we do not know the reason the content was removed for SFV.


But based on purse antidotal evidence I would appear it was due to the knee jerk reaction that the PC folks had and not from fans or potential buyers of the game.

DarkKobold

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2015, 12:40:58 PM »
...if it gets taken out of the US version...


That's not what's happening though.  At least as far as I understand it.  There isn't going to be a Japanese "ass slap" version and a US "no slap" version.  During development there was a decision to remove the ass slap.  I don't personally know why the decision was made; I'm not following the SF5 development. 


There was talk of it being rated mature -

http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2015/jun/16/street-fighter-5-possibly-rated-mature-officially-available-pre-purchase-steam-pc-beta-details/

Later, it was rated Teen-

http://gameidealist.com/news/esrbs-rating-summary-for-street-fighter-v-talks-about-the-games-suggestive-themes-and-more/

My guess is that they made changes for the $$$. Its the same as movies, they aim for PG-13 to rake in more money, as you get more viewers.

Hey, you.

sirhcman

  • Guest
Re: Ian doesn't know the definition of "censorship"
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2015, 12:55:12 PM »
My guess is that they made changes for the $$$. Its the same as movies, they aim for PG-13 to rake in more money, as you get more viewers.

Man that is one wild guess!