Wam Ethics

[Devo77]

On the UMD, a man began to share something that he did for a tv show
which fell threw in production. In it, he would go up to girls and some
guys too in public place like malls, shops, pizza parlors, and even a
subway car and ask them questions. If they got it wrong, he would pie
and or slime them. But he wouldn’t tell them that it was going to happen
to them. Sometimes they were being setup by a loved one. He said one
time he even brought a bucket of confetti with him so the person would
think they are just going to have a bucket of confetti dumped over them.
Interesting thing was according to him that because of a mishap with the
slime bucket he had, he had to use the bucket of confetti anyways. He
said he would never release footage of anyone who didn’t sign a release
and he did bring with him enough towels for the them to get cleaned up
with and paid for any damages that accrued ranging from food that that
got messy to a hole new outfit for one girl. With that being said I ask this.

Does this fall into messy fun territory. Is this something you find
appealing or appalling? I don’t know. If you want to see what I’m talking
about go to the UMD and find posts under the name ThatsUnfairTV or go
use this link.

http://umd.net/forums.html?topicid=104025

[Etonman]

Don't even think about doing it without (a) a good lawyer, and (b) a very deep pocket to pay the damages awarded against you for assault.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

I've already posted my thoughts on the subject in the original thread.

It's totally beyond what is acceptable, as far as I am concerned, and actually makes it a turn *off* for me, rather than a turn *on*.


-------------------------------------
The UK Regional WAM Groups

[Scud01us]

if you want to pie someone, ask them first. if you want to do it in public, make sure releases have been signed ahead of time unless you want WAY too much trouble, and also make sure that you are not on private property of ANY kind.

[Woofwoof]

Don't even think about doing it without (a) a good lawyer, and (b) a very deep pocket to pay the damages awarded against you for assault.

That's about all that needs to be said really

[Hayley]

Everyone is quite right about the legal side. It constitutes assault and so shouldn't be considered.

On the question of whether it's appealing - I don't think it is. I like to see people who WANT to get messy even if they are in a scenario where they are protesting or 'surprised'. Anything else is just cruel. But then I hate practical jokes too even the supposedly hilarious television ones.

Hayley

[VeraCD]

Everyone is quite right about the legal side. It constitutes assault and so shouldn't be considered.

On the question of whether it's appealing - I don't think it is. I like to see people who WANT to get messy even if they are in a scenario where they are protesting or 'surprised'. Anything else is just cruel. But then I hate practical jokes too even the supposedly hilarious television ones.

Hayley

Amen to that

[mhalver]

This is completely unacceptable. Doing this in public with some people - the humiliation level could be off the chart. Some especially sensitive people really could carry long-term emotional scars from this.

Even without that factor, without the person being aware ahead of time, you are forcing it on them. Even the people that enjoy getting messy in public have times and places where it is ok and where it is not, and he is making the choice for them without respecting their boundaries.

The monetary reimbursement doesn't even touch the real important factor, which he can not "make up" to them.

[Etonman]

This is completely unacceptable. Doing this in public with some people - the humiliation level could be off the chart. Some especially sensitive people really could carry long-term emotional scars from this.

Even without that factor, without the person being aware ahead of time, you are forcing it on them. Even the people that enjoy getting messy in public have times and places where it is ok and where it is not, and he is making the choice for them without respecting their boundaries.

The monetary reimbursement doesn't even touch the real important factor, which he can not "make up" to them.

Excellent points, mhalver.

The more I think about it, the more offensive I find the idea. The effects to a sensitive person could be akin to those caused by bullying, and we have all read of the sad results in some of those cases.

And, even on a more mundane level, where is the humour if this guy picks on someone smartly dressed and on their way to an important meeting or interview? Or even someone with difficult problems or issues on their mind, such as we all have at times?

And where does this guy draw the line? Some of us sometimes quite like to see a bit of clothes-ripping in our wam scenarios....so, would he think it entertainment to start ripping women's clothes in the street?

[easy_as_]

Correct me if I am wrong here as I don't want to mis-quote or misrepresent him . . .

. . . but he seems to think he is mitigated by only releasing the films where he has obtained the release form signature AFTER the fact. Some of the UMD posters supporting him have clung to that as justification. There is none. After the fact, ie post gunging/pieing, the victim is either too shocked to know what's best or doesn't want to seem a bad sport ? Maybe ?

Aside from the ONE pre-arranged scenario it is clearly a very dangerous game he has played for all the reasons outlined thus far both here and on the UMD thread.

Still, a point which I and a few others made there and which has not been mentioned here is this. At which point was any of these ladies told that the footage, while it may be on national or even just local TV, was going to be hawked on a Slapstick Fetish adult forum ? A forum where moslty men will enjoy watching the girls getting ' humiliated ' with mess ? Clearly I don't mean those men of a like mind who are disgusted by such a deceitful way of making this sort of film.
However, it is a fine point that would not have been explained by the producer in any clarity if at all, in all likelihood.

Something that has just occurred to me is that he may well have made a loss on the filming - given his re-imbursing of several parties involved plus whatever costs the set-ups themselves were. Hence the need to sell them onto a fetish related market.
We are very much down the line in regard to who this is aimed at, which is fine to some extent because that's what we have been used to from mainstream programs. Since this was supposed to be part of a general pranks program . . .( Game For A Laugh style perhaps ) then it seems a little insulting on that level too.

These days the community is not so desperate for any old footage of slapstick. There are producers who can cater for everyones needs more or less and are certainly open to suggestions and requests in a few custom shoots here and there !

[Lizzie_Claymore]

I completely agree. I think it demonstrates that there will always be those who are happy to benefit by creating (or, at least, remaining in favour of) misfortune for others.

There's a word for such people (several in fact), including 'selfish'. That's why this sort of activity could do the WAM community a lot of damage if it's taken by 'the public' to be representative of how we all behave (which *we* know is not the case). It's probably to our advantage that he didn't manage to get it on TV, for that reason.

It is a tendency that I've noticed on UMD in the past with the occasional comment that suggests that a poster would be happy to splosh people going about their normal routine, though this is the first time I've actually come across it happening. As is usually the case with those who take such an attitude, those who question it are immediately met with aggressive abuse by supporters of the act (though not by the initiator, who has remained level headed in his treatment, though not necessarily in his logic). The 'lynchmob' supporters are not particularly good examples of members of a supposedly 'civilised society'.

Without wishing to over-generalise and stereotype, I have noticed that it seems to be an attitude more prevalent in those 'across the pond' (albeit still in a considerable minority). I wonder whether it's some of the old 'wild west' and "go get'em" attitude that has still filtered through while, over here by comparison, we still queue quite calmly for days in a very civilised manner when there's a run on the bank! (I get the impression there'd have been riots anywhere else!) It is interesting to note the differing temperaments.

-------------------------------------
The UK Regional WAM Groups

[BillShipton]

Nothing much to add as the case has been put very well by everyone else. However should anyone be tempted to try such a thing can I just remind them that both Chris Tarrant and Sally James have been quoted (during their Tiswas days) as saying that people would often throw water and pies at them in the street when they were just shopping - and they would get very angry indeed. And Chris and Sally got messy for a living!

It's only happened to me once. Somebody hit me with a shaving foam pie in a pub in Leytonstone cos they recognised me from some shite TV programme I'd done. I was surprised but no too annoyed, but interestingly when I chucked the remains of my beer over him in good-humoured revenge HE got angry!

So be careful out there!

[QuickSlime69]

In the case at that this topic started as I find it a clear cut decision that this is morally wrong. Seeing as this is a topic on WAM Ethics I'd like to bring up another related issue that is a little more complex.

Does everyone remember the Sky News Reporter Alison Jacks pieing. Well she was doing a story regarding the advice given by something like the Clowns Union that they advised Circus Entertainers not to pie members of the audience, without having Public Liability Insurance, in case the clown was sued by one of these No Win No Fee legal firms on behalf of the pie victim.

Now just as topic starting scenario the pie in the face in the cirus is non-pre-consenual but there is somewhat of a question of whether by choosing to sit in the front row of the circus that you should somewhat realise the possibility that you could be hit with a custard pie. Also it seems somewhat a shame that something as harmless and fun as a clown act should be put under so much restriction as to what it can and can't do by such trivial matters which are quite contrary to the nature of the act.

On the one side of this issue you have the non-consenting pie hit but on the other you have something that ruins the kind of escapism of going to the circus and to a slapstick act.

What is everyone elses view on this?

[Etonman]

I think that the scenarios, mentioned by QuickSlime69, of a member of a circus audience getting involved and messy in a clown act are slightly different from the previous situation.

I'm sure that any member of an audience "dragged" into a clown's act in which they get messy or humiliated (in a comic way) will be one of the circus team planted there, simply for the reasons of possible legal liabilities for assault and damages which we have already discussed comprehensively.

Public liability insurance is something which any sensible business or public event will have these days, simply to cover the unforeseen mishaps or accidents which might cause liability to members of the public....as two examples, it's topical in the UK at the moment as being a "must" for organisers of Nov 5th firework displays, and also it's included in Home Insurances to cover happenings like a visitor breaking his leg on
an uneven path.

[General Custard]

Well I've always considered that going to a circus, or indeed any performance which has the potential for slapstick, and not expecting the supposed unexpected is like going hiking in Ireland in the dead of winter and not bringing wet-wear. So trying to bring legal action against an organiser, Public Liability insurance or not, would be like bringing action against the government for not supplying umbrellas.
I think, what it comes down to is the acceptance of personal liability- people taking responsibility for their own actions. If someone has previously declared an interest or acceptance of the humourous aspect of sploshing, whether it be in a possibly public prank form or in the form of an actual WAM session, then they should be prepared to accept not only the possibility of either occurring but the pitfalls that may be incidental to either. In the case of pranks on complete strangers, that vital element of personal responsibility is taken from the victims, so it turns what should be a fun activity for all involved into a potentially serious form of psychological and physical abuse.
I probably didn't need to say all that but that's what happens when posting while watching Rocky Horror at 4 in the morning