Hi all. Been a while since I last posted in the forums.

Anyhow I've noticed with my parodies and other peoples parodies there are dropkicks out there giving us 1s and no comment. Call me a bad sport but it really is starting to give me the sheeshs >:( because those 1 junkies don't even have the decency to explain why the parody they poorly rated sucks. I get the impression that those people are doing it for the sake of knocking people's scores down but not because of the quality of the parody. Well to be fair I guess not all people who give 1s without rating are like that but the people who are doing it for kicks deserve a bloody good hiding >:(!!!

For example with my "Stubby Shorts (Version 2)" parody of Pat Wilson's "Bop Girl" http://www.amiright.com/parody/80s/patwilson2.shtml , I got two 3x5s from two decent Aussie people who know the song and thought it was funny and gave me good comments about it, but some cheesehead gave me all 1s and not have the decency to give reason >:(! Okay I'm not up myself so to my opinion how funny this parody is depends on one's sense of humour but I should have at least gotten a 3 for pacing from that guy who gave me 1s as I did my fair dinkum best to pace it well. And I'm very certain that that person has not even heard of the original Pat Wilson's "Bop Girl" as this song was a hit mainly in Australia back in 1983 and I've not heard of it charting in America so this isn't a well-known song outside of Australia so that's why I reckon this person is giving me 1s for the sake of knocking scores down. And when I wrote my irate comment below regarding those who give 1s with no comment, I got another set of 1s >:(!!! I bet these people doing this are teenagers who get their jollies out of pissing people off. And I bet I'll probably cop more 1s now that I mention this >:(!!!

Anyhow this is a just an idea I thought of. The webmasters should make it so that it is compulsary that after we rate we leave a comment so we can know who the decent people are and who those 1s bandit dropkicks are as they'll leave a stupid comment. That way there may be less people knocking down scores for hell of it and more fair dinkum raters who give REAL ratings for the parody for its quality.

Sorry to sound like a bad sport and I openly admit I'm not the best parody writer and some of my parodies I thought I did a rotten job on but I've just had it up to here with those cheeseheads who leave all 1s and no comment as to why they gave 1s, they are not fair dinkum raters, they are just stupid immature buttheads who just get their jollies knocking scores down on parodies even if they are really good ones and I just think that is plain disgraceful >:(!

Troy

I've gotten tons of ones and almost every one has come with no comment

Troy, I actually caught a 1s-guy in the process (called Craig) and gave him 48 hours to explain his actions on my thread, ie. at

http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/myfairladysoundtrack0.shtml

Troy,

I think you're giving them way too much credit if you think they read them before giving 1s  :)  I'd just give more attention to the comments.  They're more useful in terms of feedback, and in many cases, pretty funny in themselves.  The votes (to me) are useful in telling how many people hit your song, and give a general idea of how well it went over. 

Yeah, there's been a lot of conversation about this.  Someone giving 1-1-1s is obviously someone just trying to be annoying or childish, so there's no reason to expect them to comment, and no reason to take the rating seriously. 

I used to actually find it more annoying when a perfectly paced or outrageously funny parody got  2s, 3s or 4s.  Then I realized that 2s, 3s and 4s are just given by the same annoying people who would otherwise give me 1s, except they were clever enough to realize that I wouldn't pay the 1s any mind.

So then I realized that any vote less than a 5 is just the vote of some pathetic wannabe who feels threatened by my obvious brillance and just wants to get under my skin.  (Sorry, fellas -- I'm on to you.) 

So now I realize that only 5-5-5s are worth being taken seriously as legitimate votes.

So now I realize that only 5-5-5s are worth being taken seriously as legitimate votes.



LOL!

So now I realize that only 5-5-5s are worth being taken seriously as legitimate votes.



I actually agree with that - unless there's an acknowledged (by the author) pacing problem I either give 555 or don't vote - anything less is seen as criticism, and I find it hard to be critical of stuff someone's put a lot of effort into, when appreciation is subjective anyway, and because I don't think my negative opinion should have any relevance or import.

so I limit my responses to applause, applause with comment, or indifference.

i've agreed with your sentiment since WAY BACK in ought 3 when i wrote this parody that i didn't think was very good and it EXPLODED into the top 10 overall for the site... frustrations like this is a hot issue. i suggest you write about it... anyway...

http://www.amiright.com/parody/2000s/ninedays2.shtml

Thanks for putting me onto your parody Armstrong, gave you all 5s for it. Anyhow all the more reason for there be a better voting system which the person voting has to leave a comment so we can tell who's rating fair dinkumly and who's just being a complete wanker wanting to knock our scores down.

Liked how you really gave it to Craig hard Stuart, good onya ;)!

I've also copped some real stupid immature comments on this parody http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/coolio11.shtml from two wankers robert and chris white who unconstructively criticised me, so I responded in a way trying my best to insult them. I bet they were the arsewipes who gave me all 1s too. So there's also the stupid immature buttheads who leave 1s and leave really really stupid unconstructive criticism like those two losers. People like that are just being plain losers. Again whether people find this parody funny or not depends on one's sense of humour, I personally like songs that take the mickey out of ockerism and I find arse related humour hilarious especially the classic tradesman's crack type parodies with plumbers, fridge repairmen, concreters etc... And I admit in that parody my pacing wasn't too good but that was in my early days of writing parodies.

If people give me low scores and good enough reasons for it I would be okay with that but 1s and no comments or stupid brainless comments like "you suck dickk" that just gives me the sheeshs >:(!

Cheers
Troy

Another case of unfair voting is when the decade is wrong, and some people have nothing better to do than vote ones simply because of that.

i posted 5 songs the other day, and the day after they were on the front page four of those five got hit with a 222 but no comment. I have a feeling they were all by the same person who didn't really read them. As to why, I have no idea.

Taking the wankers out of the equation for a minute, I have a theory that if some people don't like your lyrics and give you a 1 or 2, they just give you the same for pacing even if your pacing is spot on. For my part, I still haven't figured out what do do when I want to rate a parody and am not familiar with the original. The site forces me to rate pacing, so I either have to base my rating on what others have rated, or hunt down the original lyrics and compare - which I'm willing to do sometimes, usually when I really like the parody and want to see how it plays off the original. But I don't have the time to research them all.

Of course, now that I'm on this topic, I've found myself wishing there were more ways to rate than just pacing and funny. I gave a set of lyrics 5's the other day because they were brilliant, but they weren't funny - they were a tribute. It felt odd giving a 5 for "how funny" in that instance.

For my part, I still haven't figured out what do do when I want to rate a parody and am not familiar with the original. The site forces me to rate pacing, so I either have to base my rating on what others have rated, or hunt down the original lyrics and compare - which I'm willing to do sometimes, usually when I really like the parody and want to see how it plays off the original. But I don't have the time to research them all.



I can't really judge a parody well if I don't know the original in the first place.  Of course, a parody's lyrics usually have to be at least somewhat humorous on their own terms in order for the parody as a whole to work, but for me, the essence of 'parody' as opposed to just 'humorous songwriting', is the idea of cleverly playing on the theme, lyrics and/or sounds of the original work.  And oftentimes, even looking at the original lyrics on a page isn't enough to give me a real sense of it.  Only occasionally do I ever read parodies of songs I don't know, and when I do, I usually either don't vote, or I give straight 5's if the lyric is funny enough on its face.



I gave a set of lyrics 5's the other day because they were brilliant, but they weren't funny - they were a tribute.



Thanks, by the way.  Funny, I don't even remember doing a tribute recently...  maybe it was one of my oldies?

I generally use the "how funny" any way I want to depending on the parody.  In other words, as Rex correctly pointed out, you could have a tribute that is very well-written, but because it wasn't designed to be funny, it isn't.  In a case such as this, I'll interpret the "how funny" vote as "how passionate", "how well-writen" etc.  While most people tend to use the first definition of parody as a comic effect, a parody also is a re-write of the original work; it doesn't necessarily have to be funny.  I just believe that good writing should be rewarded and not penalized just becase the category is limited to "how funny". 

Thanks, by the way.  Funny, I don't even remember doing a tribute recently...  maybe it was one of my oldies?


Guess it had to have been - I certainly can't think of any other explanation!  ;D

Ahh, the One-Guy(s) (not saying that there might not be girls too).

I remember them from way back. Early 2002... well, that's at least when people started writing parodies about it. They might've been around before me too, but I do remember we had lengthy discussions about these One-People back then.

Ah... those were the days.

-E²

I have also had 1-1-1

http://www.amiright.com/parody/80s/theturtles0.shtml

Everybody who posts on Amiright long enough gets one-bombed...it's almost like an initiation ceremony! As other folks have said, unless comment is left, it's not worth even breaking sweat about...unfortunately, 1's guys love threads like this, coz it gives them a fleeting glimpse of infamy, and makes their sad little lives bearable for a short while. Enjoy this 1s dorks, you is cee-lab-rittys!! :-X

I have gotten one's with no comments as well. A response as to why they don't like it
would be nice.

I break up my time on Amiright into 2 sections: pre-hiatus (my first 35 or so parodies) and post (my next 15 or so and counting). I'm used to getting a lot of ones on songs that I otherwise get 5s on, because I write a lot of political parodies. However, it seems that since I've come back in my post-hiatus time, I've been bombarded with more ones on good, non-political parodies that ever before. Have the one-guys and girls started breeding and making lots of little one-babies to annoy me while I was gone? Or are my parodies just not as good?

Maybe non-political parodies are more likely too get ones because there arren't as many political parodies anymore.

I generally use the "how funny" any way I want to depending on the parody.  In other words, as Rex correctly pointed out, you could have a tribute that is very well-written, but because it wasn't designed to be funny, it isn't.  In a case such as this, I'll interpret the "how funny" vote as "how passionate", "how well-writen" etc.  While most people tend to use the first definition of parody as a comic effect, a parody also is a re-write of the original work; it doesn't necessarily have to be funny.  I just believe that good writing should be rewarded and not penalized just becase the category is limited to "how funny". 


The last parody I wrote "The quest for the Fecal Matter Demo"(Mrs. Butterworth) is kinda like a play/tribute parody about finding Kurt Cobain's FM demo. Probably not the best idea for a parody I've done, but I
wanted to do it anyway(it's a little different than what I normally do, I use anime themes most of the time).
It didn't get good ratings(so far: 2 votes, average rating: Pacing 3, Funny 1, overall 1). No comments were
left either, one person thought it was perfectly paced though; giving it a 5 in pacing(the other gave it
a 1). I tend to make reference parodies alot, so I don't expect everyone to find them funny.
I really like how this one turned out, as it was the most challenging songs I ever did a parody of(I know
there are harder ones than this like Weird Al's "Alberquerque", but I never really did any difficult song parodies before).  Did I spell Weird Al's song wrong? ( I not sure, that's why I asked)

Never mind, I checked and I did.
Albuquerque.

Troy, I actually caught a 1s-guy in the process (called Craig) and gave him 48 hours to explain his actions on my thread, ie. at

http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/myfairladysoundtrack0.shtml


I have checked out your example, and I must say that your song seemed pretty cute. And that is coming from someone who has never heard of the original song. If I had heard of the song, then I'd feel more comfortable about submitting a review and voting on it. All I can really say at the moment is that I liked it, it was cute, and to give my regards to Arwen. 

Now, I do not wish to argue Craig's position in the least. If there is such a rule that states an author cannot parody another author, then Craig should have simply reported the matter directly instead of giving the song a low score, and then doing the same for similar songs. He did not wish to do this; instead he wanted people to become upset for whatever reason. Voting maliciously and making snide comments serves no real purpose.

Kim.

Maybe non-political parodies are more likely too get ones because there arren't as many political parodies anymore.


I have done a couple of political parodies, and they have received more votes than any of my standard parodies. The political parodies that I've done seem to draw either ones or fives for the most part.

As to whether there's less political parodies coming out, well, perhaps pranksters are getting tired of picking on political songs. Pick on one group long enough and soon the ones and the snide comments lose their sting. Pick on songs from authors that normally get fives and then you might see some fireworks. I'm not saying that is what is really happening, but it is at least a possibility. Of course what do I know, I'm still relatively new to this place.

Kim.

I have checked out your example, and I must say that your song seemed pretty cute. And that is coming from someone who has never heard of the original song. If I had heard of the song, then I'd feel more comfortable about submitting a review and voting on it. All I can really say at the moment is that I liked it, it was cute, and to give my regards to Arwen. 

Now, I do not wish to argue Craig's position in the least. If there is such a rule that states an author cannot parody another author, then Craig should have simply reported the matter directly instead of giving the song a low score, and then doing the same for similar songs. He did not wish to do this; instead he wanted people to become upset for whatever reason. Voting maliciously and making snide comments serves no real purpose.

Kim.


Thanks, Kim, for your endorsement.  Yes there is a rule, but the rule was obviously created to stop people (like Craig, ironically) from venting their inner demons in vitriolic parodies that attack other authors.  Obviously.

There's not much vitriol in birthday tributes.  Everyone (except Craig) knows that, and that's why noone (except Craig) would argue the point 

Thanks, Kim, for your endorsement.  Yes there is a rule, but the rule was obviously created to stop people (like Craig, ironically) from venting their inner demons in vitriolic parodies that attack other authors.  Obviously.

There's not much vitriol in birthday tributes.  Everyone (except Craig) knows that, and that's why noone (except Craig) would argue the point 



I can see the usefulness in such a rule when it comes to authors going after each other's throats. It makes sense because people don't want to read a bunch of childish attempts at belittling follow authors.

I remember seeing all of the various song tributes for Arwen. I thought it was a rather nice gesture to make, and I am glad that the rule was not enacted. Protecting fellow authors is one thing, but it would seem ridiculous to enforce that same rule to punish those who only wish to honor their own. Obviously Craig could not argue his point because he really had no point to begin with.

Kim. 

That rule about no parodies about other autors was originally designed to prevent attack parodeis, if I remember correctly. It was broadened so we didn't seem too much like a big cult. Or something like that.

-E²

...if I remember correctly. It was broadened so we didn't seem too much like a big cult.


It's time for you to come to the reeducation center.

That rule about no parodies about other autors was originally designed to prevent attack parodeis, if I remember correctly. It was broadened so we didn't seem too much like a big cult. Or something like that.

-E²


Where are these rules to be found anyway?  I recall trying to find some when I first started posting.

Where are these rules to be found anyway?  I recall trying to find some when I first started posting.


I think it's on the submission page at the top (above the fields you fill in)

Oh, fer chrissakes, you're supposed to READ all that stuff?  Actually, I do remember seeing that stuff, it just didn't stick in my head because most of it seemed pretty obvious at the time.

I think it's on the submission page at the top (above the fields you fill in)


Alright then, I went to the submission page and found the following:

No parodies about other parody authors.
No attack parodies please.

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, but then I noticed another thing that caught my attention:

No corrections.
Once your parody is submitted to the site, you are not allowed to make corrections to it. I also don't allow resubmission of parodies.


I am afraid I have done this to one song I've written. "Books Glorious Books." I redid it and posted the revised version. In fact both the original and changed version exists right now. I did not intend to break any rules, and now I'm not exactly sure what I should do at this moment. I had planned on doing revisions to at least one other song of mine, but now I'm hesitant about breaking any further rules.

Kim.

I'm currently having problems with this kid called Josh2. I gave him a bit of constructive criticism (and a 333) and he lost his temper with me, started telling me to kiss his ass and has given no less than 4 of my songs 111. What should I do?

>:(In regards to recent Comments posts for a variety of recently submitted parodies, may I just ask the general amiright populace to please just chill out and take the collective bugs out of your *sses? :-\\ All this bitching makes this place look like a very uninviting website.

(Ag steps off soapbox)

I'm currently having problems with this kid called Josh2. I gave him a bit of constructive criticism (and a 333) and he lost his temper with me, started telling me to kiss his a** and has given no less than 4 of my songs 111. What should I do?


Don't sweat it.  If you know it's him/her, and that s/he's just being vindictive, then it doesn't matter. Actually, 111s are always vindictive anyway, so you can pretty much disregard them.

Actually, 111s are always vindictive anyway, so you can pretty much disregard them.


I prefer to think of them as "tough love." 

Except for when I leave them for Leo.  Then they are just vindictive. 

I prefer to think of them as "tough love." 

Except for when I leave them for Leo.  Then they are just vindictive. 


Bass turd.

Bass turd.


:-*

Don't sweat it.  If you know it's him/her, and that s/he's just being vindictive, then it doesn't matter. Actually, 111s are always vindictive anyway, so you can pretty much disregard them.


Thanx for the hints, but it's really really annoying because it brings down your average scores, which before now were pretty good. I've since e-mailed him asking him what his problem is, and I am still waiting for a reply

Thanx for the hints, but it's really really annoying because it brings down your average scores, which before now were pretty good. I've since e-mailed him asking him what his problem is, and I am still waiting for a reply


Yeah, it's annoying, but really, s/he has the right to rate it as s/he wishes, whether out of spite or not.  After all, what do you expect him/her to say? 

"I rated you 1-1-1 because the pacing bore no resemblance to the OS, it was not funny in the least, and overall, reading it was simply a miserable experience". 

Or,

"Actually, they were really fine parodies, but honestly, I was terribly hurt by your 3-3-3 rating, and my retaliatory ratings were the only responses that were available to me at the time, given my level of emotional immaturity.  I trust that in time, I will become wiser and more mature, and it is my hope that I will be better equipped to respond to criticism in the future."

;)

Yeah, it's annoying, but really, s/he has the right to rate it as s/he wishes, whether out of spite or not.  After all, what do you expect him/her to say? 

"I rated you 1-1-1 because the pacing bore no resemblance to the OS, it was not funny in the least, and overall, reading it was simply a miserable experience". 

Or,

"Actually, they were really fine parodies, but honestly, I was terribly hurt by your 3-3-3 rating, and my retaliatory ratings were the only responses that were available to me at the time, given my level of emotional immaturity.  I trust that in time, I will become wiser and more mature, and it is my hope that I will be better equipped to respond to criticism in the future."

;)


Fair point  :-\\

"Actually, they were really fine parodies, but honestly, I was terribly hurt by your 3-3-3 rating, and my retaliatory ratings were the only responses that were available to me at the time, given my level of emotional immaturity.  I trust that in time, I will become wiser and more mature, and it is my hope that I will be better equipped to respond to criticism in the future."

;)


And we all know that Leo is the only one who is smart enough to throw something like THAT together, so...

Fair point  :-\\


For him/her, the juice isn't in giving the '1-1-1'... it's in knowing you're going to be annoyed by the '1-1-1'.

Peace.

;)

For him/her, the juice isn't in giving the '1-1-1'... it's in knowing you're going to be annoyed by the '1-1-1'.

Peace.

;)


Thanx, Leo. BTW, Have you got any parodies on AmIRight?

Thanx, Leo. BTW, Have you got any parodies on AmIRight?


In a moment of complete serioiusness...which is rare for me...I'd say that Leo's parodies are some of the very best on the site...you should definitely check them out... :)

In a moment of complete serioiusness...which is rare for me...I'd say that Leo's parodies are some of the very best on the site...you should definitely check them out... :)


What are they called? And which songs are they parodies of?

Well, I was going to give you a link to his author page...but my computer has a heart attack every time I try to visit amiright while I'm at work... >:(

Here's a link to the author page...find his name there and then you'll have a list of all of his work...

www.amiright.com/parody/authors

Well, I was going to give you a link to his author page...but my computer has a heart attack every time I try to visit amiright while I'm at work... >:(

Here's a link to the author page...find his name there and then you'll have a list of all of his work...

www.amiright.com/parody/authors



:o Blimey, I haven't got time to read through all of those. It would appear, just at a glance, that he has the same sort of song choice as me, most past 2000 by pop artists who charted highly in the UK. I'll check it out some time...

:o Blimey, I haven't got time to read through all of those. It would appear, just at a glance, that he has the same sort of song choice as me, most past 2000 by pop artists who charted highly in the UK. I'll check it out some time...


Might want to look again...

I honestly don't think Leo knows any songs that were released after 1975... ;)

Might want to look again...

I honestly don't think Leo knows any songs that were released after 1975... ;)


You mean apart from Objection, Sk8r Boi, Breathless, Die Another Day, I'm Your Angel, All The Things She Said, I'm Not A Girl Not Yet A Woman, It Wasn't Me, It's Raining Men, So Young, My Heart Will Go On, Complicated, Whenever Wherever, Fallin', Radio, I'm With You, I'm Gonna Getcha Good!, Life Goes On, Game Of Love and You Learn? Yep, He clearly has no idea about songs past 1975

You mean apart from Objection, Sk8r Boi, Breathless, Die Another Day, I'm Your Angel, All The Things She Said, I'm Not A Girl Not Yet A Woman, It Wasn't Me, It's Raining Men, So Young, My Heart Will Go On, Complicated, Whenever Wherever, Fallin', Radio, I'm With You, I'm Gonna Getcha Good!, Life Goes On, Game Of Love and You Learn? Yep, He clearly has no idea about songs past 1975


I was appalled to notice, just the other day, that there's a Leo out there.  But mine are listed under Leo Jay.

I was appalled to notice, just the other day, that there's a Leo out there.  But mine are listed under Leo Jay.


...oops :-[ :-[ :-[

Might want to look again...

I honestly don't think Leo knows any songs that were released after 1975... ;)


...I see what you mean (sorry, i was looking at parodies by 'Leo' not 'Leo Jay'. Still, Leo Jay's managed to do a parody of Michael Jackson's 'Billie Jean', which was from 1983, wasn't it?..

In a moment of complete serioiusness...which is rare for me...I'd say that Leo's parodies are some of the very best on the site...you should definitely check them out... :)


Awwww, thanks bass turd.

DAK, you might want to check out some of the clever selections of our fair elf as well; hers are very clever and consistently hilarious.

Awwww, thanks bass turd.

DAK, you might want to check out some of the clever selections of our fair elf as well; hers are very clever and consistently hilarious.


I think i've rated a couple of Arwen's parodies. I know i rated "My pants are too tight". Arwen's a really good parody author, it's just a shame that she doesn't submit parodies more often

I go through phases...

There was a time that I submitted at least a couple a week...building my fan base, you know...

Now that everybody worships the ground I walk on...I try to space them out...so that people appreciate them more... ;)

I go through phases...

There was a time that I submitted at least a couple a week...building my fan base, you know...

Now that everybody worships the ground I walk on...I try to space them out...so that people appreciate them more... ;)


ah, i see! Still, we have to make do with 2nd-rate rubbish until you bring out another parody. I've gotta say, though, that includes my own

ah, i see! Still, we have to make do with 2nd-rate rubbish until you bring out another parody. I've gotta say, though, that includes my own


Lucky for you, that as a newbie, you have only read a fraction of my work.  You can always check out the rest of my parodies while you wait for inspiration to strike me again...

And...I'll be sure to check your stuff out when I'm at home...like I said before...I generally can't get on the parody site while I'm at work.

Lucky for you, that as a newbie, you have only read a fraction of my work.  You can always check out the rest of my parodies while you wait for inspiration to strike me again...

And...I'll be sure to check your stuff out when I'm at home...like I said before...I generally can't get on the parody site while I'm at work.


We're gonna have to get back on topic otherwise we'll have our posts deleted!
Have you ever had any trouble with anyone who's lost their temper with you and gave you 1s or left nasty comments? I have (already!!) I may only have been here a fortnight, but already there are two other parody authors who can't stand me!.. maybe more.. :o

We're gonna have to get back on topic otherwise we'll have our posts deleted!
Have you ever had any trouble with anyone who's lost their temper with you and gave you 1s or left nasty comments? I have (already!!) I may only have been here a fortnight, but already there are two other parody authors who can't stand me!.. maybe more.. :o


I have gotten plenty of 1s in my day.  I've also made plenty of people mad.  As lovely as you can certainly see that I am...I have to admit that there are people on the site who don't like me.  I could list them here...but I won't. 

I'm here to tell you, though, that there's nothing to stress about.  Especially with the 1s.  Last summer there was a glitch and all of the votes (well, most of the votes) were lost.  There were a lot of people who took it REALLY hard...but as for me, it wasn't a big deal.  Sure, 5s are great...but I appreciate comments the most.  Like Leo said, it's really rare that a 1 giver is going to leave a comment...so...their vote, at least in my book, is moot. 

And...if people are being mean to you in comments...and I find your cause to be worthy...you can bet I'm going to jump in and kick some ass... ;)

I have gotten plenty of 1s in my day.  I've also made plenty of people mad.  As lovely as you can certainly see that I am...I have to admit that there are people on the site who don't like me.  I could list them here...but I won't. 

I'm here to tell you, though, that there's nothing to stress about.  Especially with the 1s.  Last summer there was a glitch and all of the votes (well, most of the votes) were lost.  There were a lot of people who took it REALLY hard...but as for me, it wasn't a big deal.  Sure, 5s are great...but I appreciate comments the most.  Like Leo said, it's really rare that a 1 giver is going to leave a comment...so...their vote, at least in my book, is moot. 

And...if people are being mean to you in comments...and I find your cause to be worthy...you can bet I'm going to jump in and kick some a**... ;)


True, very true. I just fancy talking about it coz it makes me feel a bit better. I upset Poopie Longstocking (obviously!), and the other one was Josh2, who I gave some criticism to - and he took it a bit hard. In my opinion, if people can't take criticism, or if they're gonna take it to heart then they should just leave out the 'additional comments' bit. I still can't understand why Josh got upset. He still hasn't replied to my e-mail, but he's definately been on AmIRight today - he's left a couple of new comments.

I have no objection to someone voting 1's for the humor factor, but when the pacing is perfect and they lazily click a 1,2 or 3 just because they didn't like the content boils me up. >:(

I have no objection to someone voting 1's for the humor factor, but when the pacing is perfect and they lazily click a 1,2 or 3 just because they didn't like the content boils me up. >:(


I agree. It IS annoying. If people aren't going to use the voting system properly, they may as well not use the site

AHEM, back to the original topic subject. :) " Unfairly " is highly subjective in many cases. Some parodies are so bad they are 111s ( or even worse than that- I don't vote them ). A grudge/spite vote of 111 is irritating I agree. What bothers me more is I have a few parodies that have 6+ votes on them as 444 or better and nearly everyone who COMMENTED left their VOTE in the COMMENT as well. Then you get like a 222 ( with no comment ).

What bothers me even more is that the same OS with just as good of pacing from better known parodists generally do not see that type of vote ( though they will get 111's if it is toilet humor, political or $exual ).

I have seen probably 1000 parodies in the last 2 months and only seen maybe 3 REAL PARODISTS names who left a written 111 vote.

As far as the dilemma on DKTOS but find it funny ( or not ), I generally will come back to the parody and see how the pacing fares. If there are say 4+ 5s on pacing, I will rate it a 5 as well on pacing and go from there on the rest. A few songs that I DKTOS or DRTOS well but find funny I may 555 it anyway because it looks well paced or rhymed.

Everyone has their own opinion of the ratings. Some of the more bizarre votes I have seen are 115, 135, 155, 224, 515 and * GASP * a 551 ( I have received or given the last 3 ). As many have pointed out to me the overall doesn't have to be an average of pacing and funny.

Generally ( though not always ), if I don't give a 555 I will explain my decision on why you got docked a point somewhere along the line. I have given a 312 before and left a lenghty explantion of the decision of the vote of a well known parodist before ( when I first arrived on www.amiright.com ). I did not know that person at all and they did not hold the rating or comment against me.

I never dock people for miscrediting the wrong artist or wrong decade.
I also show no favoritism to any author. If it's your 6th or 600th parody and it's good or bad I will let you know why ( not that you may care ).

Note: Although song " difficulty " is not a voting choice, there are some songs that are VERY difficult to do well and I may up the score on pacing/overall a bit on these parodies.

I find the comments much more interesting and have them always enabled.

I have only one " Unfair " rating: Any parody of the song " A Horse With No Name " almost automatically gets a 555 from me because I detest TOS and NO parody could be worse ( I don't care how poorly paced or unfunny it is, unless you made the topic about $exual abuse ).

For funny votes, if something makes me smile, it gets a 3, and if it makes me laugh out loud it gets a 4, and if it makes me say "hey guys read this" to one of my friends, then it gets 5.

For pacing, if don't know the song the person is paroding, they just get a 5 for pacing because I don't think its fair to give them less, except if the parody is stupid, then they get a 1.  If I know the song, and I can follow it along, the person gets a 5, and if it makes no sense, it gets a 1.  To me, everything in between is just being anal.

For overall score, I give an avearage of what everybody else gave, so if everybody gave it a bunch of 5s and a couple of 4s and a few 3s, I would give a 3 or 4, or maybe a 5, depending on what everybodies comments says about it.

I also show no favoritism to any author. If it's your 6th or 600th parody and it's good or bad I will let you know why ( not that you may care ).


Same thing happened just earlier this week, where I gave the mighty parodying force Spaff.com a 3 for pacing because he'd missed a chorus out, and it caused a public outroar. People couldn't believe that I, a measly peasant was giving Lord Spaff or Parodyville (No disrespect to Spaff by that comment, just a comparison) anything less than 5, even after I had explained why i'd given the vote. Spaff was cool about it, and admitted himself that he couldn't believe the uproar over pacing. The simple fact is that I couldn't give a toss who's parody i'm voting on. Looking back, maybe a 3 was harsh, but giving anything higher would've shown bias, because it wouldn't be fair on the other authors i've given 3s for pacing too, when they've done the same. Thing is, just because i've given the parody 1 lousy mark, it doesn't mean it's a bad parody. I think some people need to follow your advice, Red Ant, and vote for the parody and not the artist (not a stab at anyone, but it does happen often on AmIRight)

Same thing happened just earlier this week, where I gave the mighty parodying force Spaff.com a 3 for pacing because he'd missed a chorus out, and it caused a public outroar. People couldn't believe that I, a measly peasant was giving Lord Spaff or Parodyville (No disrespect to Spaff by that comment, just a comparison) anything less than 5, even after I had explained why i'd given the vote. Spaff was cool about it, and admitted himself that he couldn't believe the uproar over pacing. The simple fact is that I couldn't give a toss who's parody i'm voting on. Looking back, maybe a 3 was harsh, but giving anything higher would've shown bias, because it wouldn't be fair on the other authors i've given 3s for pacing too, when they've done the same. Thing is, just because i've given the parody 1 lousy mark, it doesn't mean it's a bad parody. I think some people need to follow your advice, Red Ant, and vote for the parody and not the artist (not a stab at anyone, but it does happen often on AmIRight)


Everybody understands you're supposed to vote for the parody, DAK - you've completely missed the point. 

The reason so many of us were incredulous that you would dock a parody 40% of its pacing worth (bringing a perfectly-paced parody down to average-pacing level)  for omitting the 2 words "repeat chorus" is that you are the one who has made such a public point of saying how seriously you take the fine detail of voting. 

If you annoint yourself a thoughtful diligent judge of parodies, and suggest that others follow your example  (as you have done) - and then you make an incredible call like that, which nobody agrees with, you lose all your credibility in one shot. 

That's what was so amazing.  Even allowing for your need to be consistent to your own unique personal voting rules, why didn't you give it a 4?  3 is just ridiculous - and it's hard to take any of your voting sermons seriously after that.

I'm just telling you the truth about my reaction to your vote, and the reason for my comment on the thread - because it's obviously different to how you perceived the truth to be  (ie. the fact it was Spaff had nothing to do with it)

Everybody understands you're supposed to vote for the parody, DAK - you've completely missed the point.


No I haven't. I feel i've hit the nail on the head. Nobody can deny it goes on, thats the end of the matter.


The reason so many of us were incredulous that you would dock a parody 40% of its pacing worth (bringing a perfectly-paced parody down to average-pacing level) for omitting the 2 words "repeat chorus" is that you are the one who has made such a public point of saying how seriously you take the fine detail of voting.


I have explained this three times already, but i'll do it again. I have rated parodies in the past before where choruses and verses have been missed out. Meaning it is not a full parody. Meaning I can't give it a 5. If I had given Spaff anything higher, it would show bias toward Spaff and therefore it would show disrespect towards the past artists and their parodies. I didn't make any public point. I said that i'm careful of what votes i'm giving to what author as some take the votes very seriously.


If you annoint yourself a thoughtful diligent judge of parodies, and suggest that others follow your example (as you have done) - and then you make an incredible call like that, which nobody agrees with, you lose all your credibility in one shot.


I do not annoint myself a 'thoughtful diligent judge of parodies' and I have certainly not suggested others to follow my example. I'll think that you'll find that in the thread you are obviously talking about, the 'rating parodies' thread I started, I was merely asking other authors how they vote for eachothers parodies as it would interesting to see if their voting guidelines were similar to mine. That's all. I don't ever recall using the words "You SHOULD use these guidelines...". I have lost no credibility, apart from maybe yours.


That's what was so amazing. Even allowing for your need to be consistent to your own unique personal voting rules, why didn't you give it a 4? 3 is just ridiculous - and it's hard to take any of your voting sermons seriously after that.


Fine. If my votes are not to be taken seriously, then why haven't any other authors questioned the votes they have recieved from me since the incident? Obviously, you are the only one who shares this view at this moment, but what'll probably happen is people will read this reply and I will be flooded with posts arguing against me, even though I have every right to defend my votes, which I also was able to justify and explain to a satisfactory standard.


I'm just telling you the truth about my reaction to your vote, and the reason for my comment on the thread - because it's obviously different to how you perceived the truth to be (ie. the fact it was Spaff had nothing to do with it)


Spaff didn't have anything to do with the argument, he was fine with the vote, and to quote him "Dumb Ass Kid explained his vote (which is more than most voters do) and I accept and respect that - despite my cheeky comment". See? If my vote was so shocking, why isn't Spaff himself sending posts like this?

That is as far as I would like to go over the matter. I have explained my vote numerous times (which, truth be told, I shouldn't have had to do in the first place), and I feel there is nothing more to discuss. Any more replies to this post will be ignored as will personal messages.

I understand all these points you've made DAK, which is the reason I made my comment above - although I take back the bit about you suggesting others follow your example, bacuse you're right - you've never done that.

I feel you've missed my point, but I also agree that anyone can vote according to any guidelines they choose.  I don't agree with yours at all, so we'll just have to agree to disagree (horrible cliche :-[)

I understand all these points you've made DAK, which is the reason I made my comment above - although I take back the bit about you suggesting others follow your example, bacuse you're right - you've never done that.

I feel you've missed my point, but I also agree that anyone can vote according to any guidelines they choose.  I don't agree with yours at all, so we'll just have to agree to disagree (horrible cliche :-[)




Sounds good to me, Stu. I respect you a lot as an author, and I would hate us to have any unnecessary negativity between each other about something as silly as what i've gave who for whatever, or the way I vote songs. I agree to disagree! (You're right about the cliche - yuk)