phew! good to see a LOT of other people noticed it tooJandau said:Thank god I'm not the only one who noticed that. Also, thank god for Kathleen's rack...Remleiz said:Incidently, i never noticed how great Kathleen's rack is before
Totally agree with you there. I'm not impressed at how your comment as a community manager seemed to have gone completely unnoticed.Kuliani said:To those that have "gone there", I understand that in the Internet microcosm what was said are complements, but in the real world it's considered harassment.
ye, so I liked the ..uh.. lighting, ye that was nice. The logo is looking fine as ever, oh and don't forget the camera work, wonderfully executed. No no, I'm not commenting on the people in the actual shot, no no don't get me wrong there...Kuliani said:As of now, anyone that makes comments similar to what is taking over this thread, will be punished as the Posting Guidelines have been amended:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.116827.5464306
(talk about her appearance again, and you'll get banned)
They've moved the set (among other stuff) into a new office, and want to show off. But frankly I don't thin anyone has gotten it =)Joe Matsuda said:whats with them and the set lately?
first Graham is walking through and going behind the set, and now letters are falling off!
anyways, it was a lovely, funny episode (like usual)
I understand the point you are making, and I have a feeling you know the point of that amendments to the guidelines as well.MatsJn said:ye, so I liked the ..uh.. lighting, ye that was nice. The logo is looking fine as ever, oh and don't forget the camera work, wonderfully executed. No no, I'm not commenting on the people in the actual shot, no no don't get me wrong there...Kuliani said:As of now, anyone that makes comments similar to what is taking over this thread, will be punished as the Posting Guidelines have been amended:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.116827.5464306
(talk about her appearance again, and you'll get banned)
You know, that amendment makes it impossible to comment on: pronouciation, delivery, costume work, faked accents, make-up, slapstick etc. since they revolve around the appearance of the characters in the video.
It becomes near impossible to offer any kind of comment, especially on much of the Loading Ready Run, as they frequently 'play' themselves. Where the body of the entire video revolves around one or more persons and how they appear and act.
According to that guideline, discussing that Morgan was painted green in one of the latest videos would be grounds for banning, yet that was one of the bigger jokes in the sketch.
Then why doesn't the first line read something similar to: "Do not discuss the physical attributes of the people interviewed, shown, or featured in the videos or pictures, unless they are clearly stated as being an integral part of the performance in question"Kuliani said:I understand the point you are making, and I have a feeling you know the point of that amendments to the guidelines as well.MatsJn said:ye, so I liked the ..uh.. lighting, ye that was nice. The logo is looking fine as ever, oh and don't forget the camera work, wonderfully executed. No no, I'm not commenting on the people in the actual shot, no no don't get me wrong there...Kuliani said:As of now, anyone that makes comments similar to what is taking over this thread, will be punished as the Posting Guidelines have been amended:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.116827.5464306
(talk about her appearance again, and you'll get banned)
You know, that amendment makes it impossible to comment on: pronouciation, delivery, costume work, faked accents, make-up, slapstick etc. since they revolve around the appearance of the characters in the video.
It becomes near impossible to offer any kind of comment, especially on much of the Loading Ready Run, as they frequently 'play' themselves. Where the body of the entire video revolves around one or more persons and how they appear and act.
According to that guideline, discussing that Morgan was painted green in one of the latest videos would be grounds for banning, yet that was one of the bigger jokes in the sketch.
Obviously, if the point of the video was actually physical features people would not get in trouble for talking about said physical features. It's when people start discussing the attributes that aren't the point of the video that isn't fair to the entertainers.
Metaphor: If an entertainer on stage was performing for an audience, and someone in the audience started shouting leering comments, that person would be removed from the building by security/bouncers. Unless the entertainer is an erotic dancer doing an erotic dance, then the security/bouncers would not remove them unless they "go too far" with their comments.
We are trying to protect our entertainers.