c4countdown

Views have been given on either side.

DC guest characters often push the boundaries of bad taste, and this often makes them hilarious.
Kudos to whoever writes the material. It's definitely an entertainment highlight of playing apterous games.

However, I feel that putting a character based on Josef Fritzl, the Austrian man who imprisoned his daughter in his basement for years and forced her to have children with him, is way beyond bad taste.

I have played 2 apterous games with him in DC, and I find it highly disturbing.
Also, is this really the way we want this Countdown forum to be perceived by newcomers? It is extremely sick.

I've started this poll, so that people can vote anonymously without getting into a debate about it, but obviously feel free to express your views if you want to.

I've put an individual blocking choice, since Charlie has mentioned that this may become a new feature, but I have no powers in this direction (or any at all, really!).

It would be quite cool if there could be some sort of optional filter where you can choose which guests you don't want to have (I have no idea if this is at all easy to do, of course) - that way those of us who are impossible to offend could carry on as we are

I think it's fine so long as Apterous carries a disclaimer saying "No children were raped or molested during the making of this program".

Fun though this poll may be, Apterous is not a democracy and I entirely intend to ignore the outcome. Unless it agrees with me, of course. FTR I voted "not bothered". I have no idea who wrote the dialogue for most of the new characters, please make yourself known because I'd like to give credit where it's due.

I'm childish enough to find the fantastically rude DC guests very funny, so Josef doesn't bother me at all. It's no worse than things like Mock the Week making off-colour jokes about him.

I must admit that hadn't even noticed him as I generally tend to concentrate on the minor issue of getting the best words and numbers slutions rather than worry about DC on apterous.

Is it me???

It's not the fact that I find him offensive, I just find the dialogue really repetitive and sometimes he doesn't list the DC beaters. He is just really shit IMO.

I take full credit/responsibility/blame for Fritzl. I thought the dialogue was excellent, even if I do say so myself. Now get your politically correct hides down them cellar steps...

Jimmy Gough wrote:It's not the fact that I find him offensive, I just find the dialogue really repetitive and sometimes he doesn't list the DC beaters. He is just really shit IMO.

Sorry Matthew, I'm with Jimmy on this. It seems that you could only think of a couple of semi-decent lines, and I think you need more variation than that. It's a missed opportunity because implemented properly, he could have been very funny (although possibly only for un-offendable types).

Jon O'Neill wrote:I think it's fine so long as Apterous carries a disclaimer saying "No children were raped or molested during the making of this program".

But I think to some the excitement is in not knowing.

I'd like the poll option of re-written dialogue, but don't want to see the back of him.

Well I didn't really think there would be much chance of Fritzl getting the go-ahead, so I didn't want to spend too much of my clearly valuable time thinking of one-liners for him.

Some suggestions for dialogue.

"I got nothing, but my kids got [BEATERS HERE]. They've had a lot of time to study the dictionary."

"I couldn't do any better, but then again, I don't speak English. I only speak the language of love."

Using the 'lite' mode is a good solution here. Lite mode gets rid of the sounds and images, which good for me because I put music on, and without the pictures the dialogue is a lot less effective. Then you just need to skim-read the beaters/equallers (i.e. the only ones in capitals) and you're there. Quod erat demonstrandrum*.

*Doesn't this mean "This has been demonstrated"?

Martin Gardner wrote:Using the 'lite' mode is a good solution here. Lite mode gets rid of the sounds and images, which good for me because I put music on, and without the pictures the dialogue is a lot less effective. Then you just need to skim-read the beaters/equallers (i.e. the only ones in capitals) and you're there. Quod erat demonstrandrum*.

*Doesn't this mean "This has been demonstrated"?

Lite mode doesn't get rid of the DC dialogue, though. And you have to click on 'done' just beneath the dialogue to continue, so it's a bit difficult to avoid noticing it.
Thanks for letting me know why my pics had disappeared, though, since I've had the sound off for some time.

To be pedantic, the Latin translates as "that which was to be demonstrated", but your definition means more or less the same.

Julie T wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Lite mode gets rid of the sounds and images

Thanks for letting me know why my pics had disappeared, though, since I've had the sound off for some time.

Ah! I too wondered why the avatars had disappeared. I turned sound off a few days ago, but since yesterday the avatars had gone too. When I checked my account settings just now, for some reason lightweight mode was selected even though I've never explicitly set it. Weird.

I made Light Mode the default because I suspect almost all of the crashes people report now are caused by loading huge numbers of images and the stupid way that Java insists on caching them until it runs out of memory.

Just bumping this, as the vote ends tomorrow.

ATM, only 18% of the 32 votes, have voted that the character is OK or should definitely stay.
43%, by far the highest number of votes, think that it should definitely go.

Despite Charlie's comment that apterous is not a democracy, I hope he takes note of this.

Julie T wrote:Just bumping this, as the vote ends tomorrow.

ATM, only 18% of the 32 votes, have voted that the character is OK or should definitely stay.
43%, by far the highest number of votes, think that it should definitely go.

Despite Charlie's comment that apterous is not a democracy, I hope he takes note of this.

Ah, the joy of spin. It could also be said that only 47% actually wanted the character dropped, so I hope Charlie will take note of that too

Ian Volante wrote:
Ah, the joy of spin. It could also be said that only 47% actually wanted the character dropped, so I hope Charlie will take note of that too

Partly my fault, in having an option of 'not bothered', which has got 33% of the vote. How you view that figure is open to interpretation. Maybe I should have forced voting to be more 'off the fence'.

But, whichever way you look at it, Ian, adding up the for and against options, 48% voted against the character, and only 18% for.

Julie T wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:
Ah, the joy of spin. It could also be said that only 47% actually wanted the character dropped, so I hope Charlie will take note of that too

Partly my fault, in having an option of 'not bothered', which has got 33% of the vote. How you view that figure is open to interpretation. Maybe I should have forced voting to be more 'off the fence'.

But, whichever way you look at it, Ian, adding up the for and against options, 48% voted against the character, and only 18% for.

'Not bothered' implies no action to be taken. If the poll was "should we make a DC character called Josef Fritzl" then these votes would be counted with the "do not create" votes. However, no action taken in this case means Fritzl stays.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Julie T wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:
Ah, the joy of spin. It could also be said that only 47% actually wanted the character dropped, so I hope Charlie will take note of that too

Partly my fault, in having an option of 'not bothered', which has got 33% of the vote. How you view that figure is open to interpretation. Maybe I should have forced voting to be more 'off the fence'.

But, whichever way you look at it, Ian, adding up the for and against options, 48% voted against the character, and only 18% for.

'Not bothered' implies no action to be taken. If the poll was "should we make a DC character called Josef Fritzl" then these votes would be counted with the "do not create" votes. However, no action taken in this case means Fritzl stays.

Easy to see in which camp you fall, taking that interpretation, Jono.
You could just as easily say that the 'not bothered' vote should be ignored or split between the 2 sides. Again, I shouldn't really have put that option.

It does seem to be the unworldly young men of the forum who see nothing wrong in having a character who abused, imprisoned and raped his children.
I expect that it is the older members, many of whom have children of our own, and are disgusted that you think this appropriate, who have voted him out.

Julie T wrote: It does seem to be the unworldly young men of the forum who see nothing wrong in having a character who abused, imprisoned and raped his children.
I expect that it is the older members, many of whom have children of our own, and are disgusted that you think this appropriate, who have voted him out.

Patronising anyone who disagrees with you is a sure-fire way to win any argument.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Julie T wrote: It does seem to be the unworldly young men of the forum who see nothing wrong in having a character who abused, imprisoned and raped his children.
I expect that it is the older members, many of whom have children of our own, and are disgusted that you think this appropriate, who have voted him out.

Patronising anyone who disagrees with you is a sure-fire way to win any argument.

What is your reasoning for thinking this character appropriate, then?

And I do think that it is common sense, rather than being patronising, to infer that those of use with more age and experience, have more idea of how awful abuse is, especially those of use who have personally suffered from it.
And yes, I do mean me, and my children, at the hands of my father and their father.
(Proven in court, if you're worried about anyone suing for defamation.)

You'd have done far better with a simple yes/no poll and then left people to express their more detailed thoughts in the thread. As it is, the only choice that says you definitively want Fritzl to stay also carries the implication that he's hilarious, so some opinions are not represented at all in the poll choices and others are covered by several options, making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions.

Personally I find efforts to browbeat people into accepting conclusions that aren't supported by any sort of logical foundation far more pernicious than an obvious caricature of a child rapist.

Julie T wrote:What is your reasoning for thinking this character appropriate, then?

I actually voted neutrally, because I don't really care whether we have one more or fewer DC guest and I never read the text anyway.

However, discussions of the exact balance of the vote are, as I said from the start, utterly pointless. You have to convince me, and weight of public opinion won't do that. I'm sorry to hear about your own experience of abuse, but nevertheless the joke is not about abuse itself (how could that be funny?), but rather at the ridiculousness of having such a guest appear in Dictionary Corner, and the comic juxtaposition of Susie's delicate phrasing and his exaggeratedly disgusting dialogue. You don't have to agree that it's funny, but you can't assume that everyone who does is just some "unwordly" idiot who can't possibly compete with your vast understanding of human society.

Personally I find efforts to browbeat people into accepting conclusions that aren't supported by any sort of logical foundation far more pernicious than an obvious caricature of a child rapist.

Yep. The funny thing about censorship is that you always get someone who wants more. I started out by saying that I'll add a filter so that people can choose which guests they get. As soon as I agreed to that, I get people wanting me to remove a character so that even people who actively chose to get him aren't allowed to. If I agree to that then there'll no doubt be further requests, like a profanity filter on Dictionary Corner's words or some bollocks like that. So I'm not playing this silly game any further.

Might be a coincidence but I played two games this evening and Josef Fritzel was the DC guest in both of them, and the games were more or less back to back. The skeptic in me wondered whether this was perhaps more than just random having read this thread.

My only objection to Fritzl is that he's a bit naff, and possibly will become quite dated (with apologies to whoever spent time creating the dialogue, just my 2p).

Julie T wrote:
Easy to see in which camp you fall, taking that interpretation, Jono.
You could just as easily say that the 'not bothered' vote should be ignored or split between the 2 sides. Again, I shouldn't really have put that option.

It does seem to be the unworldly young men of the forum who see nothing wrong in having a character who abused, imprisoned and raped his children.
I expect that it is the older members, many of whom have children of our own, and are disgusted that you think this appropriate, who have voted him out.

To add to what Charlie said, I find it strange that you appear to be assuming that I'm conflating my acceptance of this character in the game with some sort of justification of his actions.

1) I'm not thick.
2) My sense of humour and my morals are two separate entities, although that's not to say that I don't find the subversion of morals (and most other things for that matter) funny.
3) I'm old enough to have grandchildren.
4) On a related note, why haven't we got Harold Shipman in DC spotting words in between bumping off older members of the audience?

Kevin Davis wrote:My only objection to Fritzl is that he's a bit naff, and possibly will become quite dated (with apologies to whoever spent time creating the dialogue, just my 2p).

IAWTP

Charlie Reams wrote:The funny thing about censorship is that you always get someone who wants more.

It's like a drug. When Apterous goes down, I pretend to myself that you've censored the whole thing.

Anyway, Herr Fritzl is going on trial start from today, you might wanna follow it on the news.

Martin Gardner wrote:Anyway, Herr Fritzl is going on trial start from today, you might wanna follow it on the news.

I say he's innocent. He looks like a sensible old chap.

Ian Volante wrote:

Martin Gardner wrote:Anyway, Herr Fritzl is going on trial start from today, you might wanna follow it on the news.

I say he's innocent. He looks like a sensible old chap.

He actually looks a lot like my dad/brother/uncle.

Jon O'Neill wrote:He actually looks a lot like my dad/brother/uncle.

You lot really are thoughtless selfish arseholes who think that the world and everyone in it have been put there for your amusement, and sod anyone who gets hurt by your words and actions.
I wish those who had voted against the character were as vocal.

And, Charlie, you haven't put a filter for DC guests, so that particular argument is invalid unless or until you do.

And it is perfectly valid, as many voted, to think that a character is so horrendous that it shouldn't be in apterous at all.
But then, that isn't your view, Charlie, so I suppose to a selfish little shit like you, it doesn't count.

Despite the influence from their father, I'm glad that I've brought up my children to be better human beings than you're ever likely to be.

Being clever doesn't excuse everything else.

Julie T wrote:But then, that isn't your view, Charlie, so I suppose to a selfish little shit like you, it doesn't count.

Despite the influence from their father, I'm glad that I've brought up my children to be better human beings than you're ever likely to be.

Being clever doesn't excuse everything else.

Putting it like that, I think you're lucky that Josef Fritzl is the worst guest and that Charlie Reams hasn't been put in!

Julie T wrote:You lot really are thoughtless selfish arseholes who think that the world and everyone in it have been put there for your amusement, and sod anyone who gets hurt by your words and actions.
I wish those who had voted against the character were as vocal.

And, Charlie, you haven't put a filter for DC guests, so that particular argument is invalid unless or until you do.

And it is perfectly valid, as many voted, to think that a character is so horrendous that it shouldn't be in apterous at all.
But then, that isn't your view, Charlie, so I suppose to a selfish little shit like you, it doesn't count.

Despite the influence from their father, I'm glad that I've brought up my children to be better human beings than you're ever likely to be.

Being clever doesn't excuse everything else.

What's the point trying to have rational discussion if in the end it comes down to abuse?


Genuinely no pun intended...

Ian Volante wrote:What's the point trying to have rational discussion if in the end it comes down to abuse?

I believe the phrase is 'lol Internet'.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Ian Volante wrote:What's the point trying to have rational discussion if in the end it comes down to abuse?

I believe the phrase is 'lol Internet'.

You might be right there.

Julie T wrote:And it is perfectly valid, as many voted, to think that a character is so horrendous that it shouldn't be in apterous at all.
But then, that isn't your view, Charlie, so I suppose to a selfish little shit like you, it doesn't count.

It's also perfectly valid, as many voted, to believe that maybe, it's not that horrendous at all.

The laughter is at the comeuppance of a despicable man, a public ridicule.

Consider it a more humane version of being hung, drawn and quartered.

Julie T wrote:You lot really are thoughtless selfish arseholes who think that the world and everyone in it have been put there for your amusement, and sod anyone who gets hurt by your words and actions.
I wish those who had voted against the character were as vocal.

And, Charlie, you haven't put a filter for DC guests, so that particular argument is invalid unless or until you do.

And it is perfectly valid, as many voted, to think that a character is so horrendous that it shouldn't be in apterous at all.
But then, that isn't your view, Charlie, so I suppose to a selfish little shit like you, it doesn't count.

Despite the influence from their father, I'm glad that I've brought up my children to be better human beings than you're ever likely to be.

Being clever doesn't excuse everything else.

Talk about personal bias, geez. Aren't us lot allowed opinions then? Don't answer that.

Looking forward to Charlie's response, if he bothers to dignify it with one!
Charlie might well be a lot of things, but he has not once come across to me as 'selfish' - this whole fucking site is testament to that being a pile of bollocks.

Julie T wrote:sod anyone who gets hurt by your words and actions.

Julie T wrote:Charlie, so I suppose to a selfish little shit like you,

lol.

To be honest I was considering just dropping the character because it costs me so little to lose a few lines of dialogue, and I prefer to avoid conflict if possible. But you've reminded me that some people cannot behave like adults when they don't get their own way, so there's little point in appeasing them.

Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings:

Arguing on an internet forum is like competing in the Special Needs Olympics- win or lose, you're still a retard.

Personally, i think this whole argument is past its cellar by date.............

D Eadie wrote:Personally, i think this whole argument is past its cellar by date.............

That was a terrible pun, and I incest that you apologise for it immediately.

Kevin Davis wrote:

D Eadie wrote:Personally, i think this whole argument is past its cellar by date.............

That was a terrible pun, and I incest that you apologise for it immediately.

LOL!

I've come to this thread (too) late but I'm in agreement with Julie T's sentiments, although not when it comes to the personal attacks on the selfLESS peiople who make apterous what it is.

Whilst I think I'm as broad-minded as anyone, and as a Christian I've learned to become thick skinned over the years (!) I think there's some things that are just beyond any attempt at satire and humour. There's no-one who can have watched or read the trial details this week who won't feel sick to their stomach at the depravity involved. Do we feel safer mocking Fritzl because it's taken place in another country? Would we be happy having Hindley and Brady as DC guests? Ian Huntley? Is it time for Natasha Richardson to make an appearance? Appreciate they're subjective judgments involved so someone's humour may repulse another person and we're all entitled to our opinions etc but I just think this one's a step too far.

Ross Allatt wrote:I've come to this thread (too) late but I'm in agreement with Julie T's sentiments, although not when it comes to the personal attacks on the selfLESS peiople who make apterous what it is.

Whilst I think I'm as broad-minded as anyone, and as a Christian I've learned to become thick skinned over the years (!) I think there's some things that are just beyond any attempt at satire and humour. There's no-one who can have watched or read the trial details this week who won't feel sick to their stomach at the depravity involved. Do we feel safer mocking Fritzl because it's taken place in another country? Would we be happy having Hindley and Brady as DC guests? Ian Huntley? Is it time for Natasha Richardson to make an appearance? Appreciate they're subjective judgments involved so someone's humour may repulse another person and we're all entitled to our opinions etc but I just think this one's a step too far.

As I said before, I'd be happy with any of those - the absurdity of their appearance makes them amusing, and my abhorrence of their actions makes the absurdity all the greater.

Ian Volante wrote:

Ross Allatt wrote:I've come to this thread (too) late but I'm in agreement with Julie T's sentiments, although not when it comes to the personal attacks on the selfLESS peiople who make apterous what it is.

Whilst I think I'm as broad-minded as anyone, and as a Christian I've learned to become thick skinned over the years (!) I think there's some things that are just beyond any attempt at satire and humour. There's no-one who can have watched or read the trial details this week who won't feel sick to their stomach at the depravity involved. Do we feel safer mocking Fritzl because it's taken place in another country? Would we be happy having Hindley and Brady as DC guests? Ian Huntley? Is it time for Natasha Richardson to make an appearance? Appreciate they're subjective judgments involved so someone's humour may repulse another person and we're all entitled to our opinions etc but I just think this one's a step too far.

As I said before, I'd be happy with any of those - the absurdity of their appearance makes them amusing, and my abhorrence of their actions makes the absurdity all the greater.

I'm with Ian on this one. I wouldn't be offended by seeing any of those.

I would drop him, not because he is offensive but because it is an honour he does not deserve. If I had the power I would expunge him from every public record. I object to the world holding on-going contests for the most heinous/disgusting/sadistic crimes ever. Shipman should also be deleted, as should the Wests. Remembering that they existed serves no useful purpose except for the perverted few who find their stories titillating.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Remembering that they existed serves no useful purpose except for the perverted few who find their stories titillating.

Surely the whole 'learning from our mistakes' thing applies to the world at large as well as individuals, and is one useful purposet that suggests why 'orrid types should be remembered (but not celebrated).

Ross Allatt wrote:I've come to this thread (too) late but I'm in agreement with Julie T's sentiments, although not when it comes to the personal attacks on the selfLESS peiople who make apterous what it is.

Whilst I think I'm as broad-minded as anyone, and as a Christian I've learned to become thick skinned over the years (!) I think there's some things that are just beyond any attempt at satire and humour. There's no-one who can have watched or read the trial details this week who won't feel sick to their stomach at the depravity involved. Do we feel safer mocking Fritzl because it's taken place in another country? Would we be happy having Hindley and Brady as DC guests? Ian Huntley? Is it time for Natasha Richardson to make an appearance? Appreciate they're subjective judgments involved so someone's humour may repulse another person and we're all entitled to our opinions etc but I just think this one's a step too far.

Thanks for posting, Ross. The silent majority speaking up!
It's not too late. We won the vote, it's just that Charlie, etc., aren't bothered.

Unfortunately, the ones who do the programming don't care that others are repulsed by this.
Their own amusement is much more important than others' feelings, despite a big majority vote against the character over those for.
I stand by my comments. I don't intend to let these people's amorality drive me away from apterous, though.

Matt Morrison wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Remembering that they existed serves no useful purpose except for the perverted few who find their stories titillating.

Surely the whole 'learning from our mistakes' thing applies to the world at large as well as individuals, and is one useful purposet that suggests why 'orrid types should be remembered (but not celebrated).

I don't agree. Anybody with the slightest tendency to commit such crimes is not going to be warned off by the story but encouraged by it. There are enough sickos out there already. Pour concrete over the house, Chernobyl style, and forget he ever existed.

Julie T wrote:Thanks for posting, Ross. The silent majority speaking up!

And he even did it without being abusive!

Julie T wrote:It's not too late. We won the vote, it's just that Charlie, etc., aren't bothered.

...which I told you from the beginning.

Julie T wrote:I don't intend to let these people's amorality drive me away from apterous, though.

Totally noble of you, no doubt.

Julie T wrote:43%, by far the highest number of votes, think that it should definitely go.

No, Julie - if you count up the pros and antis properly you can't claim to have a majority. At the moment the figures show 50% strongly or somewhat against and 51% stringly in favour or neutral. A highly interesting result to say the least.

Surely you can just back out of games where he appears? If you really want to make a point?

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:

Rosemary Roberts wrote:Remembering that they existed serves no useful purpose except for the perverted few who find their stories titillating.

Surely the whole 'learning from our mistakes' thing applies to the world at large as well as individuals, and is one useful purposet that suggests why 'orrid types should be remembered (but not celebrated).

I don't agree. Anybody with the slightest tendency to commit such crimes is not going to be warned off by the story but encouraged by it. There are enough sickos out there already. Pour concrete over the house, Chernobyl style, and forget he ever existed.

Regardless of what good would come from remembering or forgetting, wouldn't it just be weird to forget all about him and pretend it never happened?