If Dear Reader you have been reading this blog for any length of time you will notice that I delight in making fun of my Southern Brethren. This of course is all in good fun since I tend to make fun of just about everyone else as well. But there seems to be advantages to living below the Mason Dixon line beyond the ability to marry ones sister and attend Nascar races. That is indeed Dear Readers the fact that they tend to like their spanking down there. It appears that in 2004 a 57 year old owner of a shaved ice store in the great state of Tennessee had a rather unique and enjoyable policy. Much like our filmed spankings he doled out bottom punishment to his store employee’s for making mistakes or face getting fired
As delightful as his Human Resource policy was, it is considered illegal in this country without consent. Thus he found himself in trouble after two 19 year old girls told the police they had been spanked by this gentleman. Now oddly enough one of them continued to work for our spanking ice salesman for more then a year afterward which would indicate she didn’t mind all that much. The quotes from the original incident were quite amusing.
In defense of this gentleman he did give them fair warning
"One of the women told police that on her first day at the Tasty Flavors Sno Biz, Levengood made her sign a statement that said: "I give Gene permission to bust my behind any way he sees fit."
And the Description of the spanking?
"Police say one of the women reported that on Oct. 30, her fourth day on the job, Levengood called her "into the back room of the store" after she forgot to put a banana in a smoothie drink. She said that as punishment Levengood "bent her over his knee and spanked her behind 20 times."
Well at least it wasn’t the on the bare bottom. Now why Dear Readers would two girls subject themselves to such treatment in this day and age. Well the arresting police Sergeant had some insight on that.
"Police Sgt. Jay LaMance said the women likely accepted the spankings instead of leaving immediately because they were "brought up to respect anybody who is an authority figure."
Well Today we welcome our shaved ice spanker back into the world! He has been released from supervised probation free once again to deal his yummy cold refreshments unhorsed, and perhaps once again free to read The Spanking Spot.
Now I would like to talk about Spanking content reviews a bit. The difficulty of running movie and site reviews is that most is so subjective. We each enjoy different things and that is indeed ok Dear Reader. Hence the reason Your Humble Narrator takes great pains to describe the movie, show you what it is all about and let you make the decision. There are certain things however that are not subjective. Spanking Severity is one of them. If you have been watching spanking vids for any length of time one can usually tell a hard painful spanking to one that is playacted. I tend to use Dallas as an example of a hard spanker simply because he tends to be the most consistent in doling out severe spankings.
The other thing that really isn’t subjective is video quality. Now after my review of the SF&R video I have had a spirited conversation with the site owner what consists of video quality. Perhaps I was too harsh in identifying the quality as "Terrible" (In fairness I will probably change that to poor). Perhaps not. But to be fair I have never laid out my expectations of what quality downloadable spanking content really is. And today Dear Readers I will correct that for both the consumers and producers of great spanking material available on the Internet.
Now before I go on. NONE of the examples here should be construed as typical of the site they came from. For my some of my examples I am reaching back far into sites catalog to movies that were state of the art a couple of years ago. If your curious about what the quality is now please read the site reviews. Second, I am going to up the picture size so you can see exactly what I am talking about. For all examples I am using the exact same video capture software. The other thing to keep in mind is that what is and is not "acceptable" in video quality has changed and will continue to change over time. What is indeed acceptable today probably will not be by the end of the decade. I am going to use WMV as a benchmark, but you can see from the pictures what I am talking about if you use other formats. So Dear Reader this is how I usually rate Video Quality
Excellent Video Quality
Either near or true high def. The video should be clear at full screen on a reasonably sized monitor (20" or so). There are only a few sites offering this level of quality but that number is growing every month and as bandwidth and storage continue to become cheaper I expect this to become the standard rather then exception in the coming years. Running 1280×720 at a bitrate of 6k for true high def and over 3k for near high def. I have only seen this format in WMV
Very Good Video Quality
Running in and around 1500kbs. HD might even be overkill because this level of quality only really blurs on the smallest of details on the largest monitors. At the present time any site using this level of quality should be proud. 
Good Video Quality
Running in and around 1000kbs and about 640×480 or so. this format is quickly becoming the standard for most spanking sites on the internet today. Unlike the above video’s these tend not to run in wide screen format. 
Fair Video Quality
This is average or slightly below for a few of the spanking sites out on the internet today. These tend to run 500-800 kbs at 320×240 or higher or so. I can tell you now Dear Readers that this format is the bare minimum that I would expect a consumer to accept when joining or purchasing spanking content. With sites like Xerotics new sites like Slut Spanking, and HD Spank almost exclusively HD, Spank Amber at near HD, Bad Tushy and GBS running in 1500kbs or so, English spankers running 1200+ kbs, Northern spanking running on mp4 and Real Life Spankings at 2k+. I would highly suggest to any sites out there in this format to start to think about upgrading or get left behind in the dust. Honestly Dear Reader I would have to say that 2008 is the last year that this level of quality is acceptable.
Poor Video Quality
Anything below Fair quality. Now Dear Reader it is not exclusively on how low the bit rate is but how I suppose it was filmed and converted. (I am far from a film expert). If anyone is selling or still creating video’s with quality below the above examples I would highly suggest they upgrade, or hope that I never decide to review their material.
This of course refers to downloadable content the rules change for physical media. Those I (and I hope you dear reader) expect to be DVD or slightly below DVD quality. Particularly if your shelling out $30 bucks for a title. Now to be fair, Paul, at SFR did mention that he sells quite a few of his movies with little or no complaints. I take this gentleman at his word since he has been running a fantastic spanking site for free for all these years. Being that Yours Truly is not infallible one must question wether my hangup with video quality is shared by all. This Dear Reader I do not know, however I will continue to call them as I feel that you Dear Readers deserve
Brushstrokes
There is no reason for new content to be offered at below 640×480 or below 1000 kbs. My wife and I are making and selling our own videos, to date everything we’ve released has been shot on a sub $200 walmart camera (we just got a nice hdv camcorder, thankfully). Even with that lowly setup we can offer your “good” video quality. The only reasons I can think of for lower quality are 1) its old VHS tapes being put online, or 2) its free promotional content.
I would be very disappointed if I spent money and only got 500 kbps 320×240 video. On my blog we even had a free promo video that was 1000 kbps 640×480, its not even hard to offer that with as cheap as bandwidth has gotten.
Sure high kbps rates and higher resolution are great as long as you’re willing to wait 20 minutes to download a 3 minute clip even with a highspeed connection.