LRRcast for iPotato

[Arius]

I was more perplexed by Tim's interpretation.

These forums have been drastically split over videos. For example, Wakey Wakey. Some of us loved it, others hated it. If we all based our own judgements for the videos off of the previous posters, as was assumed, we'd all have loved it unanimously.

We're not quite a "Go with the crowd" forums. The reason why we remain a part of the community here is because we have similar tastes. That's why we became fans. But even then, we have drastically different tastes as well. So, for a lot of us to dislike a video takes a lot more than a couple people saying "This sux lolz" So, if all of us love a video, it's because it hit a place where we all agree on it being an epic video, or it featured Andy. Which is redundant.

It did seem a little belittling to basically be relegated to "Well, our forums just like agreeing with eachother." while the Escapist is offering that cutting edge critical analysis that you guys need. And where it splits is on the line between us disliking the video and them loving it. That just makes you guys seem a bit bitter.

I know that's not what you went for, but still, perplexing. Anyway, dropping the subject now.

Edit, since I'm the first one on this page and I don't want people to miss Graham's post.

Actually, guys (metcarfre, Machalllewis, etc), I am going to put the onus of reacting poorly to stuff on you, but only as it pertains to this podcast
If this made you upset, then you are way misinterpreting what we meant.

I can take criticism fine. No one likes getting negative feedback, but I can take it.
All we were trying to say, was that we like the idea of the video (cause the idea is hilarious to me, certainly) but, yes, we know that our execution didn't bring as much of "the funny" as we would have liked.

The thing is, we did exactly what we wanted. We wouldn't do it differently now, either because that's how it should have been made. When we say something like, "But I guess it's only really funny if you watch Apple keynotes", that's not us saying it's your fault. That's fully on us, because we do watch them, and we found this funny.
We don't think less of you if you don't like our jokes.

And is it your fault that you guys have a higher expectation of quality from us? No.
I just found it entertaining that The E's forums reacted much more positively because (and this is my assumption) they've only seen 4 videos and don't have any expectations yet.

Does that mean I'm upset with the LRR forums for being "too harsh"?
Not at all, and... look, I'm sorry if that how it sounded, but I would have thought that you guys would know us by now.

Come on, we love you guys! You seriously think we're going to blame a lackluster video on the audience?


PS: Our mention of "people never like our really dry stuff" or whatever we said... again, that's not how we meant it. We weren't saying that was the reason this one was poorly received. This was was poor on its own merit, but it also happens to be dry and it was an interesting observation for us.

[Master Gunner]

For the record, I generally love your dry, straight, videos (Joystique, Dinner Party are two that I loved), maybe it was just that this was so much more specific in what it was parodying, so it would mostly only be funny to a specific set of people (of which the crew is a part, and you make videos that you find funny). That's just the tradeoff that you have to make with straight, dry, parodies of specific things. It's funnier to those that it does appeal too, but less funny to those outside that set, such as myself.

[Graham]

It did seem a little belittling to basically be relegated to "Well, our forums just like agreeing with eachother."

I'll agree with that. I'd forgotten that Tim said that, and remembering now, I don't agree with him.

Regardless, I recall he was saying more as a "I wonder if this affects it" sort of thing. I don't personally think it does, but it's an interesting sociology thought, which is all he meant by it, I believe.

while the Escapist is offering that cutting edge critical analysis that you guys need.

BWAHAHAHAHA HAHA

HAHAHA

HA

No.

[DeliciousCake]

Any chance you could post that link to Graham's win post? (I'm basing the post's composition purely on the assumption that both Graham and Matt have good taste in humor).

By the way, you guys are pretty good looking. No homo.

(Also bit of a tangent, what do you guys think of how the phrase "No homo" has given men an excuse to act more homosexual than regular while "maintaining" their heterosexuality? Of course, this is only a colloquialism that has somewhat recently emerged in where I live, which is East Coast Canadia, so it's perfectly understandable if it hasn't made its way to you guys)

[Master Gunner]

I'm right on the East Coast and never heard it. Also, all the excuse I need is that I'm perfectly comfortable with my (straight) sexuality, but if I can derive amusement from making stereotypically homosexual remarks (generally by making other people uncomfortable), then I'll do so.

[Arius]

I'm right on the East Coast and never heard it. Also, all the excuse I need is that I'm perfectly comfortable with my (straight) sexuality, but if I can derive amusement from making stereotypically homosexual remarks (generally by making other people uncomfortable), then I'll do so.

Mr. Hot-buttered-love here is right.

---

I've heard the term once or twice in passing. Usually from drunk people. "I love you guy. No homo." or "Tyler, you're adorable. I love you. No homo." As if they think I'll turn to them and go "Oh, I've been straight all my life. But you paid me a compliment, I think I'll sleep with you. Oh, what? No homo. Well gee, that's too bad. Those four words you said you me meant so much that it got me to question my sexuality."

[DeliciousCake]

Well, I guess it's so local that it's only in Ontario. I'm looking at YOU ALEX. No homo. Also does no one know where the post is? All I have to go on if I decide to find it by myself is that it happened one week ago >_<

The topic/thread name would help greatly, thanks!

[Master Gunner]

Ah, well there's your problem. Ontario isn't the east cost, it's central. I mean seriously, no part of Ontario even touches the ocean, how can you call it a coast, even without the 5 provinces to the east of you?

[kikkas]

So many kittens! ^_^ Also, "are you from the past?" made me giggle (in a manly way). Ahhh IT Crowd. Good times.

[DRog]

@DeliciousCake, No homo has been over here in California for several years now. It's gotten old. It was never really fresh...

[Lord Chrusher]

I have never encountered this phrase.

Ontario is not on the East Coast; it is in Eastern Canada.

[Master Gunner]

Depending on where in Ontario you're talking about, it's more Central Canada.

[Lord Chrusher]

Ontario is east of BC therefore it is in the east.

[Cybren]

Actually, guys (metcarfre, Machalllewis, etc), I am going to put the onus of reacting poorly to stuff on you, but only as it pertains to this podcast
If this made you upset, then you are way misinterpreting what we meant.

I can take criticism fine. No one likes getting negative feedback, but I can take it.
All we were trying to say, was that we like the idea of the video (cause the idea is hilarious to me, certainly) but, yes, we know that our execution didn't bring as much of "the funny" as we would have liked.

The thing is, we did exactly what we wanted. We wouldn't do it differently now, either because that's how it should have been made. When we say something like, "But I guess it's only really funny if you watch Apple keynotes", that's not us saying it's your fault. That's fully on us, because we do watch them, and we found this funny.
We don't think less of you if you don't like our jokes.

And is it your fault that you guys have a higher expectation of quality from us? No.
I just found it entertaining that The E's forums reacted much more positively because (and this is my assumption) they've only seen 4 videos and don't have any expectations yet.

Does that mean I'm upset with the LRR forums for being "too harsh"?
Not at all, and... look, I'm sorry if that how it sounded, but I would have thought that you guys would know us by now.

Come on, we love you guys! You seriously think we're going to blame a lackluster video on the audience?


PS: Our mention of "people never like our really dry stuff" or whatever we said... again, that's not how we meant it. We weren't saying that was the reason this one was poorly received. This was was poor on its own merit, but it also happens to be dry and it was an interesting observation for us.

On the subject of the escapist forums vs this forums opinion on the video:

I was going to compose a song about "sample size" before deciding that was a dumb idea. Instead I ate nachos

[Lord Chrusher]

Now I want nachos. I think I will have to go have some.

[Metcarfre]

Actually, guys (metcarfre, Machalllewis, etc), I am going to put the onus of reacting poorly to stuff on you, but only as it pertains to this podcast
If this made you upset, then you are way misinterpreting what we meant.

I can take criticism fine. No one likes getting negative feedback, but I can take it.
All we were trying to say, was that we like the idea of the video (cause the idea is hilarious to me, certainly) but, yes, we know that our execution didn't bring as much of "the funny" as we would have liked.

The thing is, we did exactly what we wanted. We wouldn't do it differently now, either because that's how it should have been made. When we say something like, "But I guess it's only really funny if you watch Apple keynotes", that's not us saying it's your fault. That's fully on us, because we do watch them, and we found this funny.
We don't think less of you if you don't like our jokes.

And is it your fault that you guys have a higher expectation of quality from us? No.
I just found it entertaining that The E's forums reacted much more positively because (and this is my assumption) they've only seen 4 videos and don't have any expectations yet.

Does that mean I'm upset with the LRR forums for being "too harsh"?
Not at all, and... look, I'm sorry if that how it sounded, but I would have thought that you guys would know us by now.

Come on, we love you guys! You seriously think we're going to blame a lackluster video on the audience?


PS: Our mention of "people never like our really dry stuff" or whatever we said... again, that's not how we meant it. We weren't saying that was the reason this one was poorly received. This was was poor on its own merit, but it also happens to be dry and it was an interesting observation for us.

I can very much see what you're saying. Tim's comment really rubbed me the wrong way, since, essentially, he said "your opinions are invalid, and you can't think for yourselves". That sets us up to be angry - and since it's a one sided conversation, we're bound to feel that way throughout (only some of us, of course).

Re: dry stuff, I actually agree. I hated Joystique way back when, and Right To The Source prior to that (as I mentioned in the video thread). Perhaps it's the dry humour; but, having not seen an E3 or similar announcement, ever, (for Joystique), or an Apple keynote (for iPotato), there's probably a lot I'm missing. R2TS... man, I just didn't like that one. Probably the first video I didn't.

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you're parodying from a position of love or hate. MOVIES Movie Movie, no problem there, for example. Or CSI: CSI. iPotato I had to sit for a second and think "... Right. These guys don't hate Apple; hell, they LOVE Apple". Not sure if that makes sense.

[Cybren]

Right to the Source is one of my favorite LRR videos.

AND CSI:CSI.

AND AND Movie Movie Movies.

In conclusion: Different strokes fer different folks

Alternate conclusion: you have bad opinions

[Machalllewis]

Actually, guys (metcarfre, Machalllewis, etc), I am going to put the onus of reacting poorly to stuff on you, but only as it pertains to this podcast
If this made you upset, then you are way misinterpreting what we meant.

I wasn't upset by the podcast just wondering if anyone else got that kind of gist. It just seemed a bit weird to me how you guys were chatting amongst yourselves and slowly your original point got kind of warped.

I can take criticism fine. No one likes getting negative feedback, but I can take it.
All we were trying to say, was that we like the idea of the video (cause the idea is hilarious to me, certainly) but, yes, we know that our execution didn't bring as much of "the funny" as we would have liked.

Well there obviously different forms of humour as you guys know and smart humour is certainly very admirable and interesting compared to say 'Pauls got something on his head and is using a big silly hat to hide it' - which is hilarious in a different way.

The thing is, we did exactly what we wanted. We wouldn't do it differently now, either because that's how it should have been made. When we say something like, "But I guess it's only really funny if you watch Apple keynotes", that's not us saying it's your fault. That's fully on us, because we do watch them, and we found this funny.
We don't think less of you if you don't like our jokes.

You guys do whatever you want and feel free to totally ignore us! You guys rock! We lub you! I'm sure you guys would be great whether you listen to our bitching and whining or not! Not that you needed telling this, I'm sure you would have done it in your way no matter what.

And is it your fault that you guys have a higher expectation of quality from us? No.
I just found it entertaining that The E's forums reacted much more positively because (and this is my assumption) they've only seen 4 videos and don't have any expectations yet.

Does that mean I'm upset with the LRR forums for being "too harsh"?
Not at all, and... look, I'm sorry if that how it sounded, but I would have thought that you guys would know us by now.

Come on, we love you guys! You seriously think we're going to blame a lackluster video on the audience?

You know I feel we're playing the blame game a bit too much. I should probably have let this thing die anyways but I just felt that having made the original post I should maybe clarify how I felt to begin with maybe. It's free content on the internet which I personally enjoy to some extent every single week and have done for a fair amount of time now. If I could give you my babies and my gummies I would.

PS: Our mention of "people never like our really dry stuff" or whatever we said... again, that's not how we meant it. We weren't saying that was the reason this one was poorly received. This was was poor on its own merit, but it also happens to be dry and it was an interesting observation for us.

PS: I meant gummies as in like the sweet. Not like a toothless blow-job.

[Heathen]

Actually, guys (metcarfre, Machalllewis, etc), I am going to put the onus of reacting poorly to stuff on you, but only as it pertains to this podcast
If this made you upset, then you are way misinterpreting what we meant.

I can take criticism fine. No one likes getting negative feedback, but I can take it.
All we were trying to say, was that we like the idea of the video (cause the idea is hilarious to me, certainly) but, yes, we know that our execution didn't bring as much of "the funny" as we would have liked.

The thing is, we did exactly what we wanted. We wouldn't do it differently now, either because that's how it should have been made. When we say something like, "But I guess it's only really funny if you watch Apple keynotes", that's not us saying it's your fault. That's fully on us, because we do watch them, and we found this funny.
We don't think less of you if you don't like our jokes.

And is it your fault that you guys have a higher expectation of quality from us? No.
I just found it entertaining that The E's forums reacted much more positively because (and this is my assumption) they've only seen 4 videos and don't have any expectations yet.

Does that mean I'm upset with the LRR forums for being "too harsh"?
Not at all, and... look, I'm sorry if that how it sounded, but I would have thought that you guys would know us by now.

Come on, we love you guys! You seriously think we're going to blame a lackluster video on the audience?


PS: Our mention of "people never like our really dry stuff" or whatever we said... again, that's not how we meant it. We weren't saying that was the reason this one was poorly received. This was was poor on its own merit, but it also happens to be dry and it was an interesting observation for us.

I can very much see what you're saying. Tim's comment really rubbed me the wrong way, since, essentially, he said "your opinions are invalid, and you can't think for yourselves". That sets us up to be angry - and since it's a one sided conversation, we're bound to feel that way throughout (only some of us, of course).

Re: dry stuff, I actually agree. I hated Joystique way back when, and Right To The Source prior to that (as I mentioned in the video thread). Perhaps it's the dry humour; but, having not seen an E3 or similar announcement, ever, (for Joystique), or an Apple keynote (for iPotato), there's probably a lot I'm missing. R2TS... man, I just didn't like that one. Probably the first video I didn't.

Sometimes it's hard to tell whether you're parodying from a position of love or hate. MOVIES Movie Movie, no problem there, for example. Or CSI: CSI. iPotato I had to sit for a second and think "... Right. These guys don't hate Apple; hell, they LOVE Apple". Not sure if that makes sense.

The impression I got was that what Tim was driving at, before people threw their toys out of the pram and his point was truncated and malformed as a result, was that people here, and in most social settings, tend to modulate their content and their phraseology based upon the general tone and context of the conversation, something which is human nature when you're actually aware of the other participants in a conversation and don't wish to sound either outlandish or rude.

In an overwhelmingly negative thread, if a person possessing a positive opinion replies they're either going to ignore what was previously stated and sound like someone who hasn't engaged with the entire thread, and simply 'hit and ran', like someone who simply read and then disregarded the thread, thumbing their nose and saying "Neh-neh, don't care, it was awesome", or they're going to take at least a slightly conciliatory tone and still deliver the same substantive opinion in what would still be a completely positive frame.

As you all pointed out, people on the Escapist rarely care what anyone else has to say, much less carry on conversations, so correspondingly there isn't any such modulation. His theory left plenty of room for someone to differ substantially with another poster here, while still simply implying that they would, after the first few posts, at least slightly alter their delivery based upon the prevailing sentiment.

He was accusing the forums here of not lacking an understanding of basic social cues, shock, horror. Worse, he accused you all of wanting to engage in a discussion, I think I might faint.

[Arius]

...

I think you just turned Tim into a passive-aggressive Joseph Stalin.

---

I wanted to drop this but, the irony is delicious.

Notice how we're all having differing opinions on how we're taking what they said? That's what we do in every thread. Do you know how many arguments there have been on these forums? They get pretty heated. And it's not all from trolls either. I've had arguments with Matt, Graham, and once I had an argument with 70% of the active members while the other 30% were unaware of the argument. It went on about 30 pages.

We've had religious arguments, we've had political arguments, we've had social arguments. Just because we like each other doesn't mean that we're suddenly unable to express our opinions out of fear of angering anyone. Hell, look at Wraith. Pretty much every time I see a post from him, I expect to see him send someone away with their tail between their legs.

Jon Stewart has a great way of explaining what most of us perceived happening in the podcast. "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money." Though, here it's closer to "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying it's interesting how she has money and isn't a virgin."

[Heathen]

...

I think you just turned Tim into a passive-aggressive Joseph Stalin.

---

I wanted to drop this but, the irony is delicious.

Notice how we're all having differing opinions on how we're taking what they said? That's what we do in every thread. Do you know how many arguments there have been on these forums? They get pretty heated. And it's not all from trolls either. I've had arguments with Matt, Graham, and once I had an argument with 70% of the active members while the other 30% were unaware of the argument. It went on about 30 pages.

We've had religious arguments, we've had political arguments, we've had social arguments. Just because we like each other doesn't mean that we're suddenly unable to express our opinions out of fear of angering anyone. Hell, look at Wraith. Pretty much every time I see a post from him, I expect to see him send someone away with their tail between their legs.

Jon Stewart has a great way of explaining what most of us perceived happening in the podcast. "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money." Though, here it's closer to "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying it's interesting how she has money and isn't a virgin."

Which is precisely my point. We converse here, we don't make one-off statements without regard for what has been said previously or what might be said in response. My broader point is that while we do that, we do it in a way common to any conversation, that is, by giving at least a little thought to the way our statements will be received and, in some cases, altering our delivery accordingly. It doesn't mean we don't post our actual opinions, as, clearly, we do. And are. Right now

[Arius]

But that's what the problem was. It sounded like they were saying we were all just expressing the same opinion because the first couple people did.

[Heathen]

But that's what the problem was. It sounded like they were saying we were all just expressing the same opinion because the first couple people did.

I took what he said as, where the first page of early birds is, say, a net negative, I might be more inclined to say something along the lines of "It may have been [slight concession to a weak(er) element], but I found [element] hilarious, and the [element] had me in stitches.". While, if it had been a knock out success I might, as many people here are wont to do, quote someone else who was overwhelmingly effusive in their praise and simply add "THIS", or "+1", or, at least, post my own positive opinion. The more detailed the critique, I'll grant you, the less likely it is to be affected by the preceding posts.

But the contrast remains fair, regardless, in the fact that these forums discuss, while people on the E! forums are unlikely to do the same.

[Metcarfre]

I'm fully aware that Tim was not saying what I implied he was. What I'm saying is, the perception is that he was saying that. If he had had a better chance to explain himself, or phrased it differently, there would have been a different result.

Also, I hate sociology, but he already knows that.

[Heathen]

Hrm, a third podcast, just Tim, in an empty room, with his sociology essays. Nobody around to cut him off...and, granted, perhaps four or five people listening