There's way too much of it getting submitted again.  Seriousily, did several of you get together and decide to submit nothing but thinly veiled smut today or something?  I started a seperate site for this stuff.

Can you post some links just so we can get an idea of what kind of references over the line? 

I don't generally do parodies that use those kinds of themes, but I'd always thought that a passing subtle reference was okay.

Today's Vin D., for example, briefly refers to a 'horny elf' and a man who has some body parts that may be 'undersized'?  Is that too much?

Can you post some links just so we can get an idea of what kind of references over the line? 

I don't generally do parodies that use those kinds of themes, but I'd always thought that a passing subtle reference was okay.

Today's Vin D., for example, briefly refers to a 'horny elf' and a man who has some body parts that may be 'undersized'?  Is that too much?


I'm more concerned with songs like this:

http://amiright.com/parody/60s/fourtops2.shtml

which is clearly randy in nature

or maybe this one:

http://amiright.com/parody/70s/tednugent2.shtml

which we know has a double meaning.  I'm ok with that usually, but not when there's a dozen of them in one day.

how about:

http://amiright.com/parody/70s/davidessex4.shtml

(and how neat is it, that after being on the site for only a few hours google is indexing those keywords already)

There are a few more today, and clearly none of this stuff is violating obscenity laws or anything, but it makes the site seem a lot more adult oriented than it really is.  I hate playing net nanny, or engaging in the game of "what will Chuck approve this week."  I don't want the site geared towards toddlers, but on the other extreme I don't want it geared towards the stuff Howard Stern would air on satelitte.

There's way too much of it getting submitted again.  Seriousily, did several of you get together and decide to submit nothing but thinly veiled smut today or something?  I started a seperate site for this stuff.


Well, my latest parody I called a golden three headed dragon a "b**ch," which is somewhat embarrassing for the dragon because he is not a she.

Kim.

Kim, was this comment posted on the wrong thread?


Arwen, I was joking. You do have a sense of humor do you not?

Cursing out a character by calling him a "b**ch" calls into question his sexuality. If you do not understand this, then that is hardly my problem. :)

I hate ... engaging in the game of "what will Chuck approve this week."   


I think that's part of it...which is somewhat disrespectful, if you ask me.

I've seen some REALLY clever parodies that deal with sexual issues...I have nothing against them.  But, it's your site...and if you've asked repeatedly...and people keep doing it...I just don't blame you for being irritated.

There's way too much of it getting submitted again.  Seriousily, did several of you get together and decide to submit nothing but thinly veiled smut today or something?  I started a seperate site for this stuff.


ChuckyG, I believe I understand your position. As for that other site, I have seen it and it seems that many parodies there that are blatantly adult related get rated down the toilet with no comments as to why( as if people do not understand that site is FOR the adult-content parodies ). I also saw all 4 links you posted. Yes, they are very thinly veiled, but with all due respect anyone who can figure out their meaning is probably not going to be offended. I'm stunned that David E$$ex is in Google already. So what is the solution? Anything submitted to www.amiright.com of this nature will automatically be moved to the other site? Or perhaps an e-mail to the parody author that their parody is too adult and that it is in purgatory so to speak ( and needs asterisked words to qualify here )? Or perhaps a limit of say 3 parodies a day of that type ( or a modification of the submit page that would include anything $exual in nature be marked as such so that nobody will accidentally click on it )?  I personally don't mind if they are adult oriented parodies here ( as long as they are not BLATANTLY ADULT ). I also know that several of these parodies are grandfathered here and the only way to change that would be to move them all to the other site ( a huge burden no doubt ). So I humbly ask again, what is the solutuion?

Are these all new parodies you linked? (i haven't gotten to the new list page yet). If that's the case, then these veterans really should know better. ???

EDIT: (after reading some of the guilty parties)--How did thse get past your censors (if there are any?)! :o

I blame it on spring. ::)

I have not submitted anything to Whattfreaks and do not wish to do so. It's much more fun to dance around the line (wherever that happens to be) and get the mildly shocked rections here. Some people have a much bigger problem with the poo parodies. As far as I remember, you've only rejected around three of mine, so I sat down a did a rewrite. I have no problem with that. I did an accounting recently, and found that out of my 700+ songs, only around fifty were about sex. (That may seem like still fifty, but at least I don't feel obsessed; I have that many about music) Whatever you say, Chucky, we'll work with it.

On another subject, can we get a better search going? The old one you could just put in a song title and it would spit out all the parodies of it. That way you could at least avoid the same title or direct theme.

Good thing I wasn't trying to assign problems to anyone...

And of COURSE I have a sense of humor...a fairly broad one, in fact.  You telling me that something is a joke, however, doesn't make it funny.


All I said was it was hardly my problem. I made a post that you did not understand, whether that is a problem for you or not is up to you.

There are many people in this world who insist they have a sense of humor, but simply stating you have one does not make it so.  8)

Kim.

Luckily, I have comments like this to strengthen my case.

"One cannot deny that you are a comical goddess."

That was you, Kim, on my "Shame" parody.  So if you want to start arguing with your own publically stated opinion, that's hardly my problem...


You know Arwen, I made the following statement:

"There are many people in this world who insist they have a sense of humor, but simply stating you have one does not make it so."

That is not saying you "Arwen" have no sense of humor. It is simply saying that most people who insist they have one don't really have one. They merely think they have one. "Most" or "many" people does not equate to "all" people, sorry if you cannot tell the difference.

Do you have talent? I would say yes.

You seem to want to shift the attack because you think I am accusing you of having no sense of humor, well, that is fine I suppose. I can counter any attack you send my way, and can do so indefinitely. We can escalate things further if you wish, you have far more to lose than me. I suggest that from this point on we ignore one another in an effort to cease hostilities. The choice is now yours, what would you like to do?

I know the idea of requiring a log-in to view the site and read parodies is unappealing to many people, so what about allowing two different levels of access to the site?

I don't know how technically challenging this would be, but the idea is that parodies with questionable/marginal content could be coded accordingly, and would be visible only to people who are logged-in.  Casual users/visitors would still get to view everything else.

Not unlike the scenario wherein you can't post to the Politics and Religion boards unless you're not logged in.

Possible?

I don't know how technically challenging this would be, but the idea is that parodies with questionable/marginal content could be coded accordingly, and would be visible only to people who are logged-in.  Casual users/visitors would still get to view everything else.

Not unlike the scenario wherein you can't post to the Politics and Religion boards unless you're not logged in.

Possible?


Possible, but would involve the complete creation of a 'log in' scenario that would effectively make amiright similar to all the boards and forums on 'inthe00s'. Not only that, which would change the face of the site in and of itself, but you'd need to redefine every last parody and give it a new variable, a trip-value that signified whether it was questionable or not, which if done effectively would involve siphoning through the entirety of songs on amiright. This would be necessary not to add the variable, but to evaluate the parody and designate it 'questionable' or 'safe' or what have you.

The site is run on the premise of 'freedom to create' as long as it follows the existing guidelines. And Chucky, the problem you address as I perceive it is not that these works were submitted, but that they were submitted and posted ON THE SAME DAY, thus comprising a good portion of that day's submissions and retroactively making the site seem more adult-oriented on that particular day (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my assessment)...

It occurs to me that i don't have an answer. The answers I can think of, along with restating and recycling others that have been put forth already, always seem to either generate more work for you or more restrictions for the parody authors.

Chucky, I think at the end of the day, if you still deem it a daily problem that needs fixing, you'll need to pick one of those two options (more work or more restrictions) and impose it. I did notice, however, that those parodies you specifically sited were from regulars on the site, who not-so-coincidentally might all happen upon this thread. I think that alone might facilitate some small changes on the part of the authors themselves. And maybe that's why you started this thread in the first place...

It occurs to me that although we regulars, who access the site daily, may consider the "New Entries" page to be our primary access, I wonder how many casual visitors use that page?

If the concern is that a casual visitor will stop by on the odd day that the new submissions have a unusually large number of parodies about sex, politics, bodily functions or any other potentially offensive subject matter, how about simply de-emphasizing entries by date on the home page, and maybe making the listings by decade/song title more prominent?

It occurs to me that although we regulars, who access the site daily, may consider the "New Entries" page to be our primary access, I wonder how many casual visitors use that page?

If the concern is that a casual visitor will stop by on the odd day that the new submissions have a unusually large number of parodies about sex, politics, bodily functions or any other potentially offensive subject matter, how about simply de-emphasizing entries by date on the home page, and maybe making the listings by decade/song title more prominent?



I was working on a system for keyword tagging parodies, but I have been distracted with trying to get inthe80s upgraded for the past two months (getting near the end of that finally).  The new entries page though isn't just for authors, it's for anyone who visits the site on a regular basis.  It also sends a strong message to new visitors that there is new content here on a daily basis, so if you like it, come back.

I'm not even sure it's a huge problem, I just don't want there to be a rush to the adult subjects.  A lot of them on a particular day is likely to signal there is less filtering going on (even when there isn't) so I'll have to review more questionable material.  I suppose in an ideal world, I wouldn't even bother with this stuff.  It's the penalty of trying to appeal to the widest possible audience, without turning the site into strictly a kidde site. 

I was working on a system for keyword tagging parodies, but I have been distracted with trying to get inthe80s upgraded for the past two months (getting near the end of that finally).  The new entries page though isn't just for authors, it's for anyone who visits the site on a regular basis.  It also sends a strong message to new visitors that there is new content here on a daily basis, so if you like it, come back.

I'm not even sure it's a huge problem, I just don't want there to be a rush to the adult subjects.  A lot of them on a particular day is likely to signal there is less filtering going on (even when there isn't) so I'll have to review more questionable material.  I suppose in an ideal world, I wouldn't even bother with this stuff.  It's the penalty of trying to appeal to the widest possible audience, without turning the site into strictly a kidde site. 


Hey ChuckyG, did you read the duplicate parody thread? I have one that I accidently submitted twice somehow(I had to change which one I wanted to be deleted, one of them has votes on them now).  :)

Hey ChuckyG, did you read the duplicate parody thread? I have one that I accidently submitted twice somehow(I had to change which one I wanted to be deleted, one of them has votes on them now).  :)


you should send duplicate removal requests to me in a personal message, not posted in a thread, I've tried to tell people that before.

After reading this, I jumped at the chance to write a parody of Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" called "Hot for Preacher," an idea that had been floating in my mind for a long while; but I don't know how far I can go with it.

I do not mention nor reference T&A, but I mention that the preacher is married, has blonde hair and brown eyes. And I don't know if the lyric, "Give me something from Adam, babe!" would be misinterpreted or not. That's all I've got in my parody that would be questionable.

If it's inappropriate for Amiright, I wouldn't mind tweaking the parody for Whatfreaks.

Can you help, Chucky? Thanks.  :)

you should send duplicate removal requests to me in a personal message, not posted in a thread, I've tried to tell people that before.


Sorry about that. I do it that then.

After reading this, I jumped at the chance to write a parody of Van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" called "Hot for Preacher," an idea that had been floating in my mind for a long while; but I don't know how far I can go with it.

I do not mention nor reference T&A, but I mention that the preacher is married, has blonde hair and brown eyes. And I don't know if the lyric, "Give me something from Adam, babe!" would be misinterpreted or not. That's all I've got in my parody that would be questionable.

If it's inappropriate for Amiright, I wouldn't mind tweaking the parody for Whatfreaks.

Can you help, Chucky? Thanks.  :)


You're probably better off PM-ing him than posting in a thread...

Where is the personal message section at? I see that it says that I have no new messages and checked there, but I can't figure it out.

It's one of the links beneath each registered user's avatar.  Refer to his most recent post.

It's one of the links beneath each registered user's avatar.  Refer to his most recent post.


Thank you! :)

I was going to suggest corporal punishment as a means to deal with them, but having read some of the parodies that might be in question, that might be a counter-productive measure.  :D 

It's a shame there's not an easy way to give access to a small group of people who've been briefed on what to look for to let them review whatever parodies are stacked up in the queue, at their leisure, before you cut off the batch for review, and just flag the ones they think you might want to review more closely before approving... and maybe include a second flag that lets you see which parodies have been gone over by at least one person in that group and which haven't.  (Obviously, I'm shooting for the run-on sentence of the year award, here... yeesh!)  Anyway, that would help call your attention to some of the ones that might be questionable without you having to spend all day reading them and without sticking anyone with the daily chore of reading all of them.

Sexual topics aren't the only topics that would appeal primarily to adults -- and the kiddies are more likely to laugh at the (to them) "naughty" themes than some of the other adult themes -- like taxes, aging, crappy vehicles, sticker shock, gasoline prices, politics etc.  So, you shouldn't have to worry about chasing the adults off and replacing them with 8 year olds, simply by removing or disallowing suggestive content.

you should send duplicate removal requests to me in a personal message, not posted in a thread, I've tried to tell people that before.


Did you get the PM I sent? I'm not even sure I did right. Sorry about being a bother on it, I find it kind of funny that both times it was a parody of Sliver that I accidently duplicated. :D

... and maybe making the listings by decade/song title more prominent?


How about just making the listings by original song title and/or original performer? I don't even see why we need a decade; all it pertains to is when the original song (allegedly) came out. And too many people have gotten it wrong.

How about just making the listings by original song title and/or original performer? I don't even see why we need a decade; all it pertains to is when the original song (allegedly) came out. And too many people have gotten it wrong.


Decade makes sense if you're randomly searching for OSes you're more likely to know.  I don't know all that much from the last 10 years, but a lot of younger people know mostly that music.

Decade makes sense if you're randomly searching for OSes you're more likely to know.  I don't know all that much from the last 10 years, but a lot of younger people know mostly that music.

True...but it would be very misleading, say, to find an 80s song in the 70s section, or vice-a-versa. ::)

only if you were using amiright as a reference too to see when a song came out which i don't think happens very often.

When I'm not sure in which decade a song was released, I often search on amiright to get an idea (though it has been wrong on occasion - a bit like asking the audience on Millionaire, I guess)

another way to do that is go to www.top40db.net and type in the title and it'll telll you the year even without logging in

When I'm not sure in which decade a song was released, I often search on amiright to get an idea (though it has been wrong on occasion - a bit like asking the audience on Millionaire, I guess)

I say if you're unsure of the time frame, use "misc". Works for me.

another way to do that is go to www.top40db.net and type in the title and it'll telll you the year even without logging in


SWEET link, EthanM!  Thanks.