Is this because DM1 called it "kids-time TV?" I don't see where any of us said we remove a show because of the time of day it ran? And now people are responding as if we did.

Time of day is not an official criterium for determining what a kid's show is. We don't have any official criteria really. On a case-by-case basis, we'll use any info we can to try and determine the nature of the show as best we can. That's literally the best we can do in lieu of just banning all outward links or just allowing any and all links. We will make the best decisions that we can with the info that's available, and of course you should challenge us if you have better info about a show.


Family shows and movies that are not meant mainly for children are OK. So Great Race: Yes. 3 Stooges: Yes. Little Rascals: No. Mr. Rogers even if only adults in a pie fight: No.

Specialist, you have not had to remind anyone that Google exists. In fact, you are acting with people like you are accusing MM of acting with you. You were asked for specifics and instead decides to belittle people. I guess you only disagree with someone doing things when you are the victim of said treatment.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFF course you don't have any official criteria. You and your minions are just casually accusing people of being pedos based on whims and feelings that are forever subject to change because they're grounded by abso-fucking-lutely nothing.

Oh boy, can't wait to see what you and the mod squad decide makes me a pedo next. Literally anything is on the table because, by your own words, you have no criteria!

I know I came in a little hot with my original reply to this topic a couple of days ago. Turns out I wasn't hot enough. I can't believe how far things have fallen.

Also, DM1 just absolutely sucks as a moderator. But he's also the perfect face for this new era of "It Is So Because We Say So" brand of content evaluation.

That's your criteria, not mine or this site's. If you disagree with the rule then we can have a discussion on the dozen or so individual reasons why we have the rule. Otherwise you have no argument here and we can just move on.


I never called it content for pedos, but posting such content within the context of an adult site immediately sends the wrong signals to the people we don't want to attract, as well as to our billers now and in the future.


It's always all of that. All of it.


People already do generally understand this rule and we're getting along fine with it. Not everyone advocates for that content to be posted here the way that you do. And I never framed it as a way to "protect children." I'm doing it to keep UMD out of the crosshairs of our billers, the media, and actual pedos who see child-leaning content as a wink-wink. You brought up policies, so again, if you can address all the reasons why we don't allow links to children's content, let's go!


You're arguing against a "protect the children" straw-man, but that was never the point. Social media and the pace of the internet, as well as changing laws and billing practices, as well as becoming political examples, are all things now. People really are using the internet for all sorts of things that we never would have thought about years ago, and we are learning and adapting.


You haven't yet said how restricting links out to children's content is making me (or UMD's producers) rich. We still allow links out to mainstream content and always have, so....? I don't believe you know anything at all about UMD's business model, so it does honestly look like you're trolling at this point.


Is this not your entire point? If not, and you don't want that, then we are good!

The outline is no shows for kids. If you can't understand that concept, and you aren't interested in having an actual discussion about where that line should be drawn, then you are killing your own argument. You are spending a lot of time putting us down when you could be giving advice on how the policy should actually change. But you won't even take the first step of laying down what you actually want? Us to allow links to kids' shows? If not, then what's the problem?

This is all alien territory for me. Again, I'm involved in a small niche of a small niche so none of the content I make or watched in this genre crossed over into the kid shows. Scenes from Silk Stockings, For All The Marbles, TJ Hooker, CHIPS, and even other shows were never intended or aimed at kids as messy wrestling emerged from the night club circuit for adult entertainment so I have no measure of what scenes many people are going to get hot over not being able to see on this forum.

I bring up time slots as it has been mentioned as part of the whole formula of what determines what is age appropriate here. I'm simply saying it shouldn't be a part of that at all, especially in the new dawn of streaming.

Okay, so what defines a "show for kids"? Oh right, you can't tell me because you never developed criteria. At least when we thought DM1 said it was based on time of day it was something concrete to work off, asinine as it was. But now, with no criteria whatsoever, "no shows for kids" as a policy is about as useful as a blind person trying to describe the color blue.




Sounds like your team can't understand the concept because they never tried to define it in the first place. Now I know what this discussion has been like talking to a puddle of water: there was never any substance to argue against.


You could start by actually having one.


You really can't help yourself, can you? You know what would be nice: Definitions. Criteria. Something that your users who love mainstream content can work off that doesn't make us think that the content allowed on this site is being determined by a magic 8-ball. I'm sure you'd love some borderline examples so you can decide right now if it's allowed, but that's not going to happen. Your people need to learn that winging it is terrible long-term strategy.

What I would really love is the supposed leader of this site to not have the disposition of someone who would accuse others of wanting "kiddie" content when he himself can't even define what "kiddie" content is. But more and more that's looking like a pipe dream.

Here is my question: IF said policies suck or as muddled as you say, what is stopping from making an alternative? Obviously this discussion is just going around in circles and Clearly you, MM, and DM1 are not gonna be holding each other's hands in the park any time soon never mind find any consensus on this topic, soooo why continue? Websites and hosting services goes for peanuts these days. Get some like minded individuals and make this utopia where you can share what you feel is appropriate. If you feel you or anyone else can do it better, then go do it better! I'm certainly not gonna say anything bad against another messy forum popping up on the internet. The more the merrier! It might turn out to be a good thing, MAYBE even the best thing!

While I get your angst, you're not changing anyones minds here and this whole exchange is just becoming a prime example of schoolyard diplomacy. Not saying any one position is 100% right or wrong here but clearly nothing is getting solved at this rate, so why keep going?

Honestly, sick of seeing AI pictures. Its like Cartoon Network.

Personally, I haven't really needed a WAM utopia for a few years. As I get older I'm realizing that we were never supposed to be exposed to this many people--here and other places on the internet. I'm happy with my little self-funded production company, the talent who work on it, the handful of people who buy my stuff, the few who commission customs, and the like-minded individuals I can shoot the shit with on Instagram or wherever. If I want to check out other producer stuff I like, I know where to find SlapstickStuff and The Man and the Wife. If I want mainstream clips, I've got a dozen YouTube curators bookmarked. And if I'm ever curious about what's new in WAM, I know how to lurk and give the rare newbie their props on the main board and pray they have a Patreon or their own site where I can support them. What more does a guy need?

But when someone asks for my opinion on the state of UMD, I'm going to give it. And when someone uses their bully pulpit of site ownership to imply that I want to see kids in a WAM context, I'm going to defend myself. I'm sure all of my posts are as exhausting to scroll through as they were to make. But too many people have just up and quit this site because they knew they weren't going to change any minds, leading bad actors to continue being bad actors. Me, I've never cared about changing minds. My personal belief is that people need to know when they suck, even if they're not going to stop sucking. So this is me telling the moderation team that their non-policies suck, their libelous rhetorical tactics suck, their opinions on mainstream vs poorly produced WAM suck, their continuing to harbor a sexual assaulter for what has to be about 10 years now sucks, their banner ads for shit I could never be interested in sucks, their expectation that a PG-rated WAM producer would want to share store space with the aforementioned banner ad content sucks, and the producers who lazily shoot naked craigslist girls in their filthy bathrooms with no care or effort really suck. Thank you for asking, I hope someone else asks again real soon.

This post sucks.

edit: I need to explain that this was meant to be funny and continue the "this sucks" theme.

edit2: Is anyone laughing? No? My humor sucks.

For one thing, promoting such an alternative is an uphill battle - I know because I tried, and I was told that if the discussion of shows aimed at minors was to take place on my forum, then I wouldn't be allowed to promote the forum on UMD. Without that, I pretty much only had the wonderful cesspit that is the modern incarnation of WamChat and my own personal Twitter to put the word out on. Without promotion, the growth of such a community is going to be stunted.

For another, and I'm sure MM will attest to this, as would anyone who has tried moderating any forum ever, moderation is draining and thankless work. If you do manage to get people to join, more than a fair few will just be there to try and undermine your work in any way possible. There is a weekly TV show in the UK that slimes low-tier celebrities, usually decided by a democratic vote from the viewers, and my forum was regularly reported to the company that owned the domain for trying to "rig" the vote (behaviour which was outright banned in the forum rules, by the way) so that if there was a woman in the vote, she would get it every time. There was a troll with a vendetta against me and maybe a handful of other members over some drama that occurred on the long-dead TellyGunge site, and he would try every trick in the book to get around bans and blocking just so he could deliver his latest dose of verbal abuse at us. These are just some examples of the kind of utter crap you have to deal with as a moderator and/or administrator of a forum, and you're just kind of taken for granted most of the time.

I touched on it a little bit, but if you want a forum that's not held together by the coding equivalent of string and off-brand duct tape, you also need to invest time and actual money into it. Technically it's optional, but it's a lot better for optics if you don't have "forumotion" or "invisionfree" or whatever in your URL, and can make the site look exactly how you want to rather than having to rely on a set of free pre-built skins. The fact you're giving cash back to the company hosting you can't hurt your chances in dealing with the false flaggers, either.

It's easy to say "just start your own UMD with blackjack and hookers", but it's a lot harder to actually do it. Which is why I eventually decided "you know what, someone else can do it".

So firstly, it's a shame I had no idea that you produced. You don't really advertise it (obviously for reasons you previously mentioned) so cool meeting your acquaintance.

As for the SA charge (and I know to who you are referencing), you and I are on the same page there and to be honest, that whole discussion deserves a thread of its own and not buried under another topic as I feel it is THAT important. I make no illusions of what my opinions are on how the whole Mostwam situation was handled (and that will continue to remain unchanged, so no one bother trying). The other instance happened before I came back as a producer so the only reference I have is archived stuff from the forum posts themselves but if I am to believe the rumors and allegations, yeah, that posture I cannot abide by either.

As for the poorly produced stuff, I get it. I am pushing in the same direction, brother. Part of the reason I got into this isn't just because I got tired of subpar efforts being made, but also because it is being exalted over people who are legitimately pushing themselves to try to create the best possible product. I have met people in fetish who genuinely LOVE photo and video so much that they can never put the camera down, no matter what they are shooting. I know. I am one of them. Conversely, I have met people who love their fetish so much, they refuse to shoot it in any manner they feel would reduce it in any way. Some of them are here! You see and feel their passion because they love this so much, so yeah, I feel you.

Issue is, we need the amateurs here as well and we all have to start somewhere (staying there is a different story). Do I think this site is a bit lopsided in how it balances out? Eh, I think that is more industry wide. Onlyfans and it's commercial success is a prime example of that so now we got people in droves with an iPhone, 30 dollar ring light and a penis calling themselves producers which is haphazard. I do believe there needs to be a distinction in place between content creator/provider and producer, otherwise every GWC can be considered a "producer", and I just don't believe that's the case. We already seen what happens when creepy GWC behavior is not just accepted but admired/replicated (see above). That being said, having the ability to produce vs having the maturity/responsibility to produce are two very different things and we all have seen examples of that, especially the models.

As for the rest? I Dunno. Is it a bit much? Yeah. Do I feel in many ways that it presents a perceived conflict of interest? Of course. That's why I suggested what I did and to be clear, it wasn't some slight sided way of saying "Derp, love it or leave it". I agree things can be better. This place isn't perfect by any stretch. Can improvements be made? Absolutely and if you or anyone else wanna step up and create a place apart from here that you think will benefit the community in any way, I'm all for that but at the same time, I understand that this forum isn't mine. I gotta respect the house rules and all that. Do I agree with all of them? No but I get where they are coming from.

No problem, good to meet you! I used to have a store here when there was a little more balance between the styles and flavors of WAM. But now I can't really associate my brand with the stuff that dominates the forums and the stores here. And I'm obviously not going to advertise now that I've made enemies with 90% of the site . But WAM is a small world. My Instagram and Vimeo will be found organically, eventually.



Congrats on staying persistent and developing your love of photography and videography! I've recently started transitioning into professional corporate video work based on the skills and love of shooting WAM for nine years. It's so much easier to shoot when you don't have to worry about cleaning up gallons of cake batter afterward! Can't wait for the suit and tie normies to ask how I got into video production. But it would be nice if there were a producers forum that wasn't locked to non-UMD store owners. I'd spend all my time there. One might think that's another example of showing deference to those who make the UMD money over the outside world, but I want to keep it positive when I talk shop so I won't elaborate.


One of the things I would love to do one day is make a video training course for aspiring WAM producers. It's dead simple to shoot a video on your phone, upload it here, set a price, and make money. But there's no instruction on how to be an ethical director or a professional creative partner. Nobody talks about why a bathroom is an awful location for a shoot or the little things that can be done to make your subject appear as beautiful as possible. This is the stuff people really need to know, but I have my doubts that people are going to watch--let alone pay for--some guy go on about call sheets and soft light. I can't pin that on the UMD, though. That's a culture-wide problem exacerbated by low barrier of entry and instant gratification toward all the wrong things.


True but again, I'm happy with my own little WAM world. It sucks that a bunch of people similarly inspired by mainstream scenes and a preference for non-sexually-explicit stuff are being left behind (and don't listen to the propaganda--they very much are being left behind), but some crappy unmoderated cookie-cutter forum isn't going to help them. Only thing they can do is speak up here, where the people and the infrastructure are. Many of them have been around forever and earned their right to express disapproval and remind MM where he came from. The house always wins, but it doesn't mean we can't go out without a fight.

I think there was a thread of its own about this situation if it is the one I am thinking of. I still have the old links and what not. I am not sure there would be any benefit to the discussion here for 3 reasons. 1. I don't think victim blaming for not filing a police report is a good look which is where this went last time it was discussed. 2. The general consensus that has been consistent concerning that situation is that while there may have been smoke, there is no way to prove it was not part of the script etc. Lastly, it then becomes a discussion where certain members of the forum try to label it creepy and horrible behavior that people would save receipts and clips of the occurrence, if it is what I am thinking of. That it is wrong to keep evidence of patterns of behavior and that we are deplorable human beings for keeping that kind of stuff. The biggest thing I have learned from the discussions about that topic is without a police report or a court case, the standing is that nothing happened. I do not agree with it, but it is what it is.

My thoughts on seeing the deep debate that's been going on: "I just come here to masturbate ."

Thanks to everybody for enduring this conversation. I really have to concentrate on issues with the site and I can't just do this forever. I've been responding because I feel that it's important to get us on the same page. I really don't think there is a lot of actual confusion with the rule that we can't link out to shows made for children. it's devolved into a pissing match without any actionable suggestions or honest questions about what the rules actually are.

If anybody has any *serious* input for solid policy changes and how we would deal with their fallout, please speak on that. Anything else is just noise really. I might respond later on some points, but for now I'm out.

Peace

At the risk of making things worse, and in hope of making things better, here's the problem as I see it:

A) Passa ou Repassa, and other South American shows, CAN'T be discussed on UMD forums because they are aimed at audiences 16+ (source: unknown Wiki page), which means children's content; while
B) The Great Race, among other shows and movies, CAN be discussed on UMD forums despite being aimed at audiences 6+ (source: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/movie-reviews/the-great-race), because that means family content.

This approach demonstrates neither clarity nor consistency, and so arguments follow.

An obvious solution would be to have a list, either in the ToS or linked from them, of which shows can and can't be discussed - which improves clarity - and a link to challenge the classifications to ensure inconsistencies like the one above are removed (or explained, where there are other criteria than age of audience). As all the hard work of deciding which show goes where has apparently already been done, it just needs typing up. The list can be updated with each new adjudication, and any transgressors can be directed to the ToS.

No need to change policy, just communicate it better and allow for refinements over time. Thoughts? Comments?

[Apologies in advance to MM and the Mods for potentially increasing their workload, but it has to be better than wading through another thread like this every time, no?]

I don't think a list will happen or is the right way to go. I think that depending on the site you use for reference some of the content in the gray area can go one way or the other. The people on the site you linked can't even decide on the age appropriateness of the movie. I think when it comes down to it, it is the media in the gray area that would need more clarification.

No, Passa ou Repassa specifically can't be discussed because it's a children's programme. Here's the Wikipedia page for it (in Portuguese, Google Translate may be of assistance):
https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passa_ou_Repassa

If you translate the page it clearly states the show is a version of Double Dare, which is a world-famous children's game show originally broadcast on Nickleodeon, which is a dedicated Children's TV network. The show was subsequently franchised round the world, many countries had their own versions.


You're conflating two different things. The Great Race was a U certificate, meaning anyone including kids could watch it in a cinema. That's what that site is explaining. But it wasn't made specifically for a child audience, which kids TV shows are made for, and which is the deciding factor if there aren't any kids on screen.

Cinema films specially for kids nowadays get a Uc certificate to indicate they are particularly kid-friendly.

There's nothing confusing about the rules, it's a simple two-part decision:

Kids anywhere on screen - no go.
Made specifically for kids - no go.

It only requires a little thought to work out what is and isn't allowed, and there's no penalty if someone gets it wrong, someone will eventually notice or report it, the thread gets deleted, and we forget about it.

And conversely, if anyone disagrees with a thread deletion, all they need to do, as I've said several times in this thread, is click the Report button and request a review. Reports are anonymous (even to the mods), and review requests / "I don't think this should have been deleted" will be left for MM to look at.

But honestly, there's no conspiracy, and no plot to exclude mainstream wam. There's a thread about a South American pie show in the Messy forum just now, and another about pies on the US Big Brother.

Your link is about a show from 1987. There is a current show, which is a subset of Domingo Legal, which incorporates the Passa Ou Repassa format, but is part of a greater show that is not geared towards children. They have the same host in common, however, for the most part the participants are d-list Brazilian celebrities, not children. Although, if and when they do invite younger participants, nobody disagrees it should not be shown here. It does share the same name and format, because of the host, but itself is part of Domingo Legal... which like the Great Race, is NOT specifically for children.

So, looks like you need to find a different obscure wiki now, dontcha? This one you linked simply does not apply. In other words: You lose.

Looks like the Domingo Legal Passa Repassa is back on the menu, boys!!! I'll be posting some links here soon, let today mark a major victory for non XXX producer-only wam!

Link to the all-knowing WIKI page: https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domingo_Legal

Domingo Legal is a "Programa de auditio" which just means a live action audience show with varied guests, NOTHING about being for children whatsoever! DungeonMaster1 is wrong! All wrong about it and I'm glad we could sort this out and get to the bottom of it!

It's not about winning or losing, it's about three main objectives:

1. Protecting the community from being viewed by outsiders as a place where people get their rocks off to kids shows.

2. Protecting the site from being shut down by the billing companies.

3. Not encouraging the kind of people who really do get their rocks off to kids shows.

Now, you're saying that there is a new version of Passa ou Repassa that is separate and different to the original kids show, but has the same name. Do you have any data to back that up? The Wikipedia article on Domingo Legal which you linked to does mention Passa ou Repassa once - in a link to the other article which says it's Double Dare. Having read the translation of the full page, there's no mention of any all-adult version of PoR.

Also, you seem to be saying that the new PoR mostly has over-18 but sometimes has younger people? TBH given that as far as I know none of the mods are experts on Brazillian celebrities, if there's any possibility that the show can feature under-18s, the safest course is probably to keep it banned, just in case. It appears that Domingo Legal itself would be OK, unless anyone knows otherwise, but anything actually branded PoR probably can't be allowed.

Regardless of the above, at the momet PoR is specifically banned, hence the tick-box you have to tick to even mention it. Only MM can change that, and as he's said, for the time being he's focusing on the on-going code updates. So you can message him and ask if he'll change or remove the ban, but it may take some days before you get a decision.

As I said, this isn't about winning, losing, point-scoring, or egos. It's about looking after the best interests of the UMD community in general.

I mean, with all due respect, if no one is an expert on Brazilian celebs, maybe the mods need to consult with one? I mean surely there is someone from Brazil or another Portuguese speaking country on this forum. The WAM community isn't just relegated to English speaking countries and this isn't going to be the first instance where TV shows from other parts of the globe come under fire of this discussion. So while I can understand where we need to protect the forum at large, no one better be surprised when people get pissed off because their thread starters are getting nuked.

While I think we definitely need to preserve the forum, I also think it's under the responsibility of management to research the material and seek ALL manners of information before coming to a decision to ban a specific show or not. Shows recycling names is nothing new in TV land and it is quite possible his statements are correct. It's been done before by other shows and it isn't uncommon for long time running tv shows (and stations for that matter) to change their format. For instance 1997 RAW episode on WWF/WWE is going to be vastly different from 2020 WWE and what was once Spike TV is now under management of Paramount and so forth.

While not directly related to the topic about mainstream WAM, it does kind of fit in the scope. What about attire? An argument could be made that school girl outfits are adults dressing in uniforms high school girls wear.

How about... YOUR OWN fucking link? Did you even bother to read that or were you too busy trying to insinuate people (who've stated they ONLY want to see adults) are peeds?


"It returned as a feature of Domingo Legal on July 7, 2013."

A feature of a show that is NOT oriented to children at all. Now, yes, before you start stammering and saying shit as always, yes it also says *initially* it was comprised of younger people. Gotta be clear with you, even if you're going to ignore it -- NOBODY IS INTERESTED IN THAT. It quickly evolved into what it is now: Same format (with mess and pies) and with celebrities. Most of whom are clearly and obviously adults, in their 30s and upwards.

Your own link, which you apparently did not read:

> 6 Fase: 2018-presente Editar

> A pedido do plico nas redes sociais, o quadro Passa ou Repassa voltou ao programa Domingo Legal, a partir do dia 25 de mar de 2018, com ajustes no cenio, mas mantendo o formato anterior.[4] No episio de reestreia, o quadro contou com a participao da apresentadora Eliana. Nessa fase, o game show voltou a render bons dices de audicia ao dominical e passou a ser um dos principais destaques do Domingo Legal, ao lado do repaginado quadro Xaveco e a partir de 2020, passam a contar com ex-participantes do Big Brother Brasil e A Fazenda[5][6].

> Na temporada 2020 no episio de 15 de mar, o quadro do Domingo Legal foi apresentado pela primeira vez sem plateia desde sua reformulao como programa de provas malucas em 1988. O motivo foi a Pandemia de COVID-19, que motivou o SBT a retirar provisoriamente a plateia fica.[7] A partir de maio com a volta de episios inéditos, o quadro é apresentado sem plateia, tendo apenas os participantes, o apresentador e os assistentes, mas com adaptaes de distanciamento social como: uso de barreiras de pltico para separar os participantes nas bancadas, além da distribuio e uso de luvas, tendo como novidade um acessio para o lanmento da torta na cara no famoso quadro de perguntas e respostas do programa, que é disparada no adversio assim que apertar um bot, evitando assim que os participantes se toquem. Isso foi utilizado até a primeira parte da temporada 2022.[8]

> Pela temporada 2022, o programa foi apresentado sem plateia e com métodos de distanciamento social até o dia 24 de abril, jque no dia 1 de maio, o quadro voltou a receber a presen de plico, com as provas, incluindo a tradicional torta na cara, retornarem ao seu formato antigo. Para receber a volta do plico em forma fica, foram escalados os apresentadores recém contratados Carla Vilhena e Otaviano Costa e a dupla Simone & Simaria, com alguns convidados especiais.[9]

... That is all anyone care about. The era of this which is all adults and is part of a show that is not somehow made for children.

The current section of that article, on the 5th and 6th phases, states it still involved schools, with the school of the winning team receiving a TV and home cinema setup as a prize, as well as the prizes for the contestants. Phase 5 ended in 2016 but it was revived again for Phase 6 in 2018, and as the section you quote says, "maintaining the previous format" (exact words). Now it does also say "with adjustments to the scenario" but doesn't explain what that means. Same games with different players? Same type of players with different games?

That's all from the Wikipedia page as translated by Google Chrome on September 16th 2023, screenshot attached.

No-one has accused anyone of being a peado. I commented (ages ago) that it's possible people seeing clips in the past may, in all innocence, not have realised that the show could feature under-18s, that's all. That was not and is not intended as any kind of accusation and I totally get you're only interested in 100% adults.

In terms of protecting this community, and complying with the non-negotiable hard rules that the billing companies have imposed, we have to tread very carefully. Having now read that entire article - which you're right, I didn't real all of before, I got to the point where it said it was a version of Double Dare, which I already knew was a kids show, and stopped - there's nothing to say that it still doesn't still feature schools or school teams, as even the Phase 6 section says "maintaining the previous format".

But stepping back from all of that, the fact that the name did originate as a kids show means having it linked to in video clips from here is a risk. The billers use automated scanners to look for infractions of their rules. Those scanners aren't going to know or care about subtle variations in different versions of something. They're just going to spot "forbidden content" and flag the site for an infraction. That's the bottom line in all this.

Lol this response should go over like a fart in a church lol

Wait until you find out what most game shows post-1980s that feature adults getting messy are based on...

Also, RIP any off-topic discussion of the 1976 quiz show hosted by Alex Trebek called "Double Dare." I mean, all the contestants were adults and there wasn't a drop of slime anywhere to be found on that show, but the name...

https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passa_ou_Repassa <-- reminder and anyone can see/read for themselves.

Love the blatant lying, always a sign someone has a great argument when they just make shit up.

Here is the translation:

"5th Phase: 2013-2016

After just over a decade of hiatus, in May 2013, the attraction's return was announced. Passa ou Repassa returned as a feature of Domingo Legal on July 7, 2013, still presented by Celso Portiolli. Initially, the tableau was carried out with schools and prior recording (as in the 90s), maintaining the same tests and the same structure, including the traditional Torta na Cara. In the new version, its scenario was adapted for Domingo Legal, without having its own scenario, as it was in the 90s. Participants received cash prizes, tablets and the "clean guy", the one who didn't get any pie in the face , would invoice a smartphone. The champion school had a TV and a home theater.[2] However, the format was soon adapted for 'live' and began to be performed with celebrities and, often, interweaving other scenes.

Re-read that last line: HOWEVER, THE FORMAT WAS SOON ADAPTED FOR 'LIVE' AND BEGAN TO BE PERFORMED WITH CELEBRITIES AND, OFTEN, INTERWEAVING OTHER SCENES.

As we've all said from the start: the celebrities were mostly adult and the few episode w/ younger ones, nobody disputed or argues those specific shows should be anything but banned here. No kids, we all agree with that 100%.

Last: "Due to the reformulation of Domingo Legal and the wear and tear of the game, which had airings lasting more than three hours, the show Passa ou Repassa was canceled and aired for the last time on May 1, 2016, with the cast of the soap opera Cplices of a Rescue.[3]"

So, *initially* it was the format that is taboo but quickly transitioned to mostly adult celebrities and nobody is interested in any of the episodes but the ones that only had exclusively adults. In any case, it was cancelled and is not the current version...

Which is...

"6th Phase: 2018-present Edit

At the request of the public on social media, the program Passa ou Repassa returned to the program Domingo Legal, from March 25, 2018, with adjustments to the scenario, but maintaining the previous format.[4] In the premiere episode, the show featured the participation of presenter Eliana. At this stage, the game show returned to yield good ratings on Sundays and became one of the main highlights of Domingo Legal, alongside the revamped Xaveco show and from 2020 onwards, it will feature former participants from Big Brother Brasil and A Fazenda[5][6].

In the 2020 season, in the March 15th episode, the Domingo Legal program was presented for the first time without an audience since its reformulation as a crazy test program in 1988. The reason was the COVID-19 Pandemic, which motivated SBT to provisionally withdraw the physical audience.[7] From May onwards, with the return of new episodes, the show will be presented without an audience, with only the participants, the presenter and assistants, but with social distancing adaptations such as: use of plastic barriers to separate participants in the stands, in addition of the distribution and use of gloves, with the novelty of an accessory for throwing the pie at the face in the program's famous question and answer panel, which is fired at the opponent as soon as they press a button, thus preventing the participants from touching each other. This was used until the first part of the 2022 season.[8]

For the 2022 season, the program was presented without an audience and with social distancing methods until April 24th, since on May 1st, the show was once again attended by the public, with the tests, including the traditional pie in the man, return to their old format. To welcome the public back in physical shape, the recently hired presenters Carla Vilhena and Otaviano Costa and the duo Simone & Simaria were chosen, with some special guests.[9]"

Mostly talking about covid protocals and the few celbs mentioned: older adults.

Someone needs to put DungeonMaster's responses through a Google translate from Bullshit to Truth, maybe. His posts might make more sense.

I would say if the clip is from the new show. Has no identifying tags, titles, etc the credit card bots won't do anything. Not even going to go down the path of all the clearly labeled stuff on YouTube, which does take money that credit card companies ignore. If they really cared, they would go after the big companies. It feels like credit card companies are being used as the boogeyman. You don't know where thr boogeyman is or even if the boogeyman will strike. But because the boogeyman exists take more precautions than most media sites because of that.

I have yet to hear the difference between a clip labeled school girls showing actual school girls, and adults dressing like school girls. Seems like that would fall under the can't use titles or labels from shows like You Can't Do That on Television.