Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Subject: Political Voting
I just had a look at Will Tong's latest offering, the American Pie parody, and one thing was very starkly highlighted: the voting is completely ridiculous... at the last count
P F O
1 22 23 23
2 1 0 0
3 0 1 0
4 5 4 6
5 30 30 29
..IOW, 90% of people have voted either 1:1:1 or 5:5:5 - it's a pretty good parody, but it's not *that* funny, so neither sets of votes are justified. So just because it's an anti-Bush rant, Republicans gave it all 1s, and Democrats all 5s? Have you any idea how puerile that looks?
Must admit, I look at voting results like that and wonder why I bother...
Phil
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Most of the time I don't even bother to read Tong's parodies. I will admit that the ones I did read paced very well, and the first couple I did read were funny, but after a while, the same thing over and over and over again kinda grates on anyone's objectivity.
I think the one-guy(s) are just as anti-Tong as Tong is anti-Bush ;) I simply choose not to vote, and if I do, I'm very fair with my pacing vote.
But to give him a straight-one vote for an at-worst-mediocre parody simply because A) the voter is Republican B) it's a Tong parody is wrong.
There should be some kind of rule that forces one-voters to explain why they did so. Dunno how that would work though.
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Quoting:
There should be some kind of rule that forces one-voters to explain why they did so. Dunno how that would work though.
End Quote
Wouldn't people just put things like "b-cuz it SUX!" I can't imagine anyone honestly telling WHY they voted all ones. :-/ (Except for a few people of course who don't actually abuse the voting privilege.)
Subject: Re: Political Voting
This is nothing new. If you thought the voting pattern was bad for "Republicans Lie," check out the Top 100 page, which lists the most voted-upon parodies. One third of them are written by me, and when you check the vote breakdowns, there are a huge number of 1-1-1 votes. No doubt, a lot of those votes are out of spite, but hey, it doesn't necessarily work against me. ;)
That's why I wrote "One":
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/threedognight0.shtml
Quoting:
I just had a look at Will Tong's latest offering, the American Pie parody, and one thing was very starkly highlighted: the voting is completely ridiculous... at the last count
P F O
1 22 23 23
2 1 0 0
3 0 1 0
4 5 4 6
5 30 30 29
..IOW, 90% of people have voted either 1:1:1 or 5:5:5 - it's a pretty good parody, but it's not *that* funny, so neither sets of votes are justified. So just because it's an anti-Bush rant, Republicans gave it all 1s, and Democrats all 5s? Have you any idea how puerile that looks?
Must admit, I look at voting results like that and wonder why I bother...
Phil
End Quote
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Thanks for your support for fair voting, but I'm afraid the 1-1-1 pattern will remain the same, because most of my songs are political.
With all due respect (and nothing against Malcolm), but may I point out that hardly anyone has ever accused Malcolm of writing too many parodies about sex, or says that all of his sex parodies are "the same thing over and over again." The only thing that's the "same" is my viewpoint; does anyone realistically expect that to change? Satire is supposed to have a viewpoint. My lyrics from song to song are certainly not the same; Dubya's pretzel incident is not the same as lying about WMDs, nor does it have anything to do with Ann Coulter's antics. Politics covers a huge area of personalities, events, and incidents, and is indeed fair game. Trying to make them into song parodies is a challenge, and it's not easy. It helps that Dubya and his party provide plenty of satire material.
Quoting:
Most of the time I don't even bother to read Tong's parodies. I will admit that the ones I did read paced very well, and the first couple I did read were funny, but after a while, the same thing over and over and over again kinda grates on anyone's objectivity.
I think the one-guy(s) are just as anti-Tong as Tong is anti-Bush ;) I simply choose not to vote, and if I do, I'm very fair with my pacing vote.
But to give him a straight-one vote for an at-worst-mediocre parody simply because A) the voter is Republican B) it's a Tong parody is wrong.
There should be some kind of rule that forces one-voters to explain why they did so. Dunno how that would work though.
End Quote
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Quoting:
With all due respect (and nothing against Malcolm), but may I point out that hardly anyone has ever accused Malcolm of writing too many parodies about sex, or says that all of his sex parodies are "the same thing over and over again." The only thing that's the "same" is my viewpoint; does anyone realistically expect that to change? Satire is supposed to have a viewpoint. My lyrics from song to song are certainly not the same; Dubya's pretzel incident is not the same as lying about WMDs, nor does it have anything to do with Ann Coulter's antics. Politics covers a huge area of personalities, events, and incidents, and is indeed fair game. Trying to make them into song parodies is a challenge, and it's not easy. It helps that Dubya and his party provide plenty of satire material.
End Quote
Touche, pussy cat. I don't vote much on Malcolm's parodies either, because a bunch of them are on whatfreaks (which I don't frequent) and the majority of them on here conflict with my sense of taste :P
As for political satires, I'm all for them, and I respect your viewpoint. I've voted for a few (very fairly, mind you) but I've avoided the rest just based on the title.
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Lebeiw, you hit the nail right on the head. Like the 1-1-1 voting, the comment fields of my songs would be filled with a proliferation of such statements, if I had checked off "allow comments." Don't think so? In the last 2 years, I've been attacked repeatedly on the messageboard, and I've had attack parodies written about me 18 times, most recently by someone who deliberately misspelled my name to sneak it in. Responding to personal attacks and attack parodies is a needless waste of my time, and Chuck's. I've had my web site running two years prior to Amiright, and I've gotten all the positive feedback as well as hate mail that I need.
Quoting:
Wouldn't people just put things like "b-cuz it SUX!" I can't imagine anyone honestly telling WHY they voted all ones. :-/ (Except for a few people of course who don't actually abuse the voting privilege.)
End Quote
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Thank you, Philbo, for highlighting that example of partisan voting gone amuck. Obviously, we all know that that kind of thing happens, but I was still surprised by that extreme example. (Thanks, also, to Chucky for implementing the enhancement to let us see voting distributions).
Is there a solution? Probably not a solution that doesn't create more problems. But I do think that the haphazardness of the voting makes the comments more important. I, like Rice Cube, have mostly stopped voting on Will Tong's parodies and one of the reasons I stopped is that I can't comment on his political parodies.
I know that Will is correct that he would get some goofy comments, but how much goofier could they be than the comments that Michael Pacholek and Guy DiRito, among others, get? And Michael and Guy seem to handle the comments very well.
Subject: Re: Political Voting
Quoting:
I know that Will is correct that he would get some goofy comments, but how much goofier could they be than the comments that Michael Pacholek and Guy DiRito, among others, get? And Michael and Guy seem to handle the comments very well.
End Quote
I don't think they'd be "goofy." I think they'd be hate filled, and pretty stupid. Most of the political parodies that have enabled comments, are filled with swearing (which I have to delete), personal attacks, etc. The majority of them, are pretty awful. It's one of the reasons parody authors have the choice of enabling comments.
Subject: Re: Political Voting
I must admit I don't understand how politics gets so personal between supporters - I mean, I've written parodies to take the mickey from all three political parties in the UK, and I'd be amazed if they caused the sort of rancour as we've seen on some of the Bush-bashing... I've even played my "Portillo" parody to someone from Conservative central office, and she thought it was brilliant and wanted to use it for their end-of-conference revue (not that anything came of that, of course... typical politicians, all promise and no action ;-) )
If you happen to believe that George Bush is an intelligent world leader heading for a Nobel peace prize, why get so uptight about a parody that says he might not quite compare to your lofty ideals? And then again, if you're a democrat, why overrate a parody just because it calls GWB dumb?
But I guess these are rhetorical questions as I don't think any of these voters will be reading this thread... or if they were, they probably wouldn't have the plain decency to justify themselves anyway.
Phil