BrickQueen vs BrickSpy

[Peppermint_M]

M'kay we're above personal attacks alright? Please & thank you.

Mainly to stay nice, I didn't mean to start anything nasty with that post, just make my distaste at the action known.

Cheers

[kermit]

''I then made her a counter-offer to her earlier request (that I remove the vids about her) and I said I would remove my past videos about her, and would contact her about any future videos relating to her so that she may offer a statement.'' .....part of a quote from brick spy

My opinion here but why do you even have or want to let her say whether its ok or not to put up a video that mentions her. The last time i checked no one can claim ownership of the internet and BQ certainly doesnt own you tube. Its freedom of speech and if someone doesnt like it then just unsubscribe. My friend remember its freedom of speech and its your channel and dont let anyone tell you different.

[dr_spock]

Eurobricks Site Guidelines time?

By joining, you agree that you are 18 years of age, willing to act maturely, have not previously registered on the site, and will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or property rights, or otherwise illegal. Further, you may not join this site solely to sell or advertise goods or services.

[Captain Pirate Man]

I might be wrong in saying this, but I haven't read anything in here that violates the site guidelines. Sure some of us, myself included, did comment on her looks. But that is just our opinions, which I don't feel were abusive. Which perhaps I'm wrong in that opinion, but my point is that she made the conscious effort to reveal herself in a certain way. So by doing that I feel she opened herself up to a certain amount of ridicule. Imo, she took the focus away from her content by using her "assets", so I don't think it makes myself or others bad for stating our opinions on it. I guess all I can say is that I didn't open this can of worms, in this thread or on YouTube.

But having said all of that, it doesn't really matter to me, so don't take this post for more than it really is, me playing devils advocate. I really don't have anything else to say on this given topic, thanks.

[Amset-Rah]

Yeah she was the one who decided to do what she did, and I thought even though it fit the theme, it wasn't needed. I apologize if I stepped over the boundaries here but I didn't think I said anything totally out of line. If I did, I'm sorry.

[Captain Pirate Man]

I also apologize if any of comments caused any hurt feelings.

[Brickster_McGee]

''I then made her a counter-offer to her earlier request (that I remove the vids about her) and I said I would remove my past videos about her, and would contact her about any future videos relating to her so that she may offer a statement.'' .....part of a quote from brick spy

My opinion here but why do you even have or want to let her say whether its ok or not to put up a video that mentions her. The last time i checked no one can claim ownership of the internet and BQ certainly doesnt own you tube. Its freedom of speech and if someone doesnt like it then just unsubscribe. My friend remember its freedom of speech and its your channel and dont let anyone tell you different.

I agree as well, let's keep it professional. Not sure if advertising goods or services fits with the warning, but I agree to no longer speak of a person's weight or attire, or to make anything personal. I do agree with Kermit however, if I were BrickSpy, I would not have agreed to her terms and just kept the videos up. I saw the videos, they were just news videos, and last I checked, news reporting is protected speech and is not subject to copyright infringements.

[gratefulnat]

This whole thread is just ridiculous for all parties not directly involved.

Social media at its best, whether positive or negative, just generating attention (well meant or not) for senseless crap.

But, since I'm no better than the rest , I can't resist

just a little tongue in cheek humour

Edited March 7, 2015 by gratefulnat

[Breakdown]

I might be wrong in saying this, but I haven't read anything in here that violates the site guidelines. Sure some of us, myself included, did comment on her looks. But that is just our opinions, which I don't feel were abusive. Which perhaps I'm wrong in that opinion, but my point is that she made the conscious effort to reveal herself in a certain way. So by doing that I feel she opened herself up to a certain amount of ridicule. Imo, she took the focus away from her content by using her "assets", so I don't think it makes myself or others bad for stating our opinions on it. I guess all I can say is that I didn't open this can of worms, in this thread or on YouTube.

But having said all of that, it doesn't really matter to me, so don't take this post for more than it really is, me playing devils advocate. I really don't have anything else to say on this given topic, thanks.

I can agree with this a little, but only about 20%. If I opened a thread where you had a MOC of your own of a car, you were calling it let's say a Ford GT40, and I wasn't seeing it. Would it be fair game to comment that that it doesn't look cool enough to be a 1980's Taurus, forget about an epic sports car and then question your intelligence having posted said car pics, and wasting our time with a thread about it??

Would it be truthful - maybe, even yes.

Would it be appropriate as per the site rules and the spirit of how most people conduct themselves here. Absolutely not.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I've seen how welcoming absolutely everyone has been to me and negative comments on someone's appearance kinda cross the line.

Carry on. I'm not going to hate on anyone for what was said in this thread. This bigger things that are smaller (lego) in life to worry about.

[Captain Pirate Man]

@Breakdown,

I agree with you 100% that everyone on here have been more than friendly, it is a great site. Which I do not want to be one to create negativity where there is none. But having said that I do feel your post was a bit of an Apple's and oranges comparison. ALso, as I said earlier, it was not I that took us down that rabbit hole. Did I take us a step or two further on our journey, yes perhaps, and for that I apologize. But again, it was not I that began us on that journey. Also and I can't stress this enough, if you go and watch the clips in question (namely the SW episodes) you will find more comments about her appearance than about the legos or what she is saying. To her credit, most of those comments are positive, but others are also said to be from children, which I think speaks to the unnecessary feeling some of us were getting at. If I'm to be completely honest here, i do think she is using legos and her platform to draw some sexual attention to herself. Which I suppose she has the right to do so. Do I agree with it? No, but I'm hardly losing sleep over it either. But if she has the right to make such videos, do I not then have the right to call them into question? I just feel that if she wanted to draw some sexual attention to herself, using legos is not the appropriate platform. Had she made a video of herself, on a nonlego channel, wearing the slave outfit, I would have no problem with that what so ever. There are plenty of things on YouTube far more riske than that.

I just can't help but think some of this has to do with the fact that I said negative comments regarding her looks, which I regret. But if I had said "she looks hot" I'm not sure anyone would have batted an eye. That just seems a little double standardise. Which I understand this site likes to keep things on the positive side, so all I can say is I have learned my lesson.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Captain Pirate Man

[Amset-Rah]

Same. I kind of feel a little dirty bringing up the Slave Leia thing. It was a bit uncalled for to open that can of worms. I think the best thing for me to do is not talk about this anymore, for fear I might dig myself a deeper grave than I may have done already. Doesn't mean my opinion's changed, but I want to maybe hold back the cavalry so to speak. Sorry if I offended anyone, you don't have to worry anymore. Not to mini-mod, but I think it'd be best if this thread was closed.

[Brickster_McGee]

I agree with you 100% that everyone on here have been more than friendly, it is a great site. Which I do not want to be one to create negativity where there is none. But having said that I do feel your post was a bit of an Apple's and oranges comparison. ALso, as I said earlier, it was not I that took us down that rabbit hole. Did I take us a step or two further on our journey, yes perhaps, and for that I apologize. But again, it was not I that began us on that journey. Also and I can't stress this enough, if you go and watch the clips in question (namely the SW episodes) you will find more comments about her appearance than about the legos or what she is saying. To her credit, most of those comments are positive, but others are also said to be from children, which I think speaks to the unnecessary feeling some of us were getting at. If I'm to be completely honest here, i do think she is using legos and her platform to draw some sexual attention to herself. Which I suppose she has the right to do so. Do I agree with it? No, but I'm hardly losing sleep over it either. But if she has the right to make such videos, do I not then have the right to call them into question? I just feel that if she wanted to draw some sexual attention to herself, using legos is not the appropriate platform. Had she made a video of herself, on a nonlego channel, wearing the slave outfit, I would have no problem with that what so ever. There are plenty of things on YouTube far more riske than that.

I just can't help but think some of this has to do with the fact that I said negative comments regarding her looks, which I regret. But if I had said "she looks hot" I'm not sure anyone would have batted an eye. That just seems a little double standardise. Which I understand this site likes to keep things on the positive side, so all I can say is I have learned my lesson. ������

I agree with you, we have all apologized for making pun's about her weight, and that is understandably a personal attack, which we all agreed to not repeat. However, the moderator should be able to distinguish between a personal comment about someone's weight, and a very valid comment about how inappropriately someone dresses for a channel geared toward kids. When someone chooses to wear a costume to get a reaction, then it's completely fair to comment about that costume. I don't feel its fair to censor everyone who's reaction was not positive about that person's "shock costume" (as long as criticism is done professionally)

That all being said, this thread about about BQ's attack against another YouTuber, so we have all actually gotten off topic. The bigger issue with the entire BQ thing, is that her malicious attack on BrickSpy which is only the tip of the iceberg with her. Unfortunately she has influence over 140k subscribers, and countless others who watch her videos who have not subscribed.

I think we all agree that she should hold herself to a higher standard, and not attack a smaller YouTuber for simply reporting LEGO news. Apparently she has never heard the phrase "there is no such thing as bad publicity"...

Edited March 10, 2015 by Brickster_McGee

[vexorian]

Wow.

And here I thought she just used a little skeezy titillation (lit and fig.) To get viewers.

Going to say most of my fellow AFFOLs I've met have been so much nicer.

What this has to do with AFFOLs? If a dude AFOL filed DMCAs againsts youtubers it wouldn't say anything bad about dude AFOLs in general.

I would have to agree with you, even though LEGO is now widely accepted as a toy for adults too, it has always been for the kids, and for her to be hanging out all over the place is disgusting and inappropriate. I would say it is not appropriate for anyone to flaunt themselves like that when their channel is geared toward kids, but ESPECIALLY when they look like BQ, she has nothing to show off! Well let me rephrase, she has A LOT to show off, but nothing anyone wants to see...

I don't see how she appearing in the thumbnails is specially less appropriate than other AFOLs who show up in thumbnails and reviews.

[Brickster_McGee]

What this has to do with AFFOLs? If a dude AFOL filed DMCAs againsts youtubers it wouldn't say anything bad about dude AFOLs in general.

I don't see how she appearing in the thumbnails is specially less appropriate than other AFOLs who show up in thumbnails and reviews.

I was trying to steer us back to the topic at hand, but to answer your comment, the problem was not that she is in the thumbnails, it is what she is wearing (or lack of what she is wearing rather). Her channel is geared toward kids, and she wears outfits suited for late night Cinemax... I have kids, and I certainly don't agree with someone marketing themselves to my kids in a sexual manner...

But just to reiterate, this is not the topic of discussion, and since this site has a lot of kids on it as well, we would like to shift the focus back to the original topic... But if we have nothing else to add to the original topic, then I guess it would be time to close the thread?

[Captain Pirate Man]

I posed this very question to my wife, "how would you feel if you found our son watching a lego SW review and the reviewer girl was wearing the SW gold Leia bikini?" She said "that's a pretty revealing outfit for a woman to be wearing on a show talking about a child's toy, I wouldn't let him watch it." I then posed the question, I wonder how people would respond to me wearing a provavctive male outfit reviewing a girls lego set, like friends or elves? People would probably call me a pervert and get my kicked off of YouTube or worse.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but my original point is that seems a little double standarish.

[Faefrost]

I posed this very question to my wife, "how would you feel if you found our son watching a lego SW review and the reviewer girl was wearing the SW gold Leia bikini?" She said "that's a pretty revealing outfit for a woman to be wearing on a show talking about a child's toy, I wouldn't let him watch it." I then posed the question, I wonder how people would respond to me wearing a provavctive male outfit reviewing a girls lego set, like friends or elves? People would probably call me a pervert and get my kicked off of YouTube or worse.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but my original point is that seems a little double standarish.

As I recall There were a number of female reviewers that seemed to jump on that Leia Bikini idea at one point. Including one rather well tanned blonde who filmed such a review wearing the outfit alongside her young daughters. I'm not sure I see the controversy involving the Slave Leia costume? It's from a 30 year old movie that was largely targeted at 12 year old boys. It's a bikini. A standard female issue swimming costume, dressed up a bit. I'm fairly certain there isn't anything there that would be considered mentally scarring to kids? Heck the kids get more out of the outfit. They simply see the reviewer playing dress up.

I don't think we need to be discussing how our female AFOL's dress so much. Let a reviewer stand or fall based on their actions and words. BQ leaves the impression that there may be some things she has done worth talking about and mulling over. I don't think wardrobe choice or cleavage is ever really one of them.

And dudes, if you are watching Lego reviews for the cleavage... We really gotta have a talk. If your child is seemingly watching Lego reviews for the cleavage, then in today's age of the interwebz and rule 34, you have a stupid child. Get him remedial help.

[Sven F]

There was always something about Brick Queen I didn't like. The camera work is extremely amateurish and comments are very trivial without any constructive information.

And if there is something I hate with a passion, it's censorship.

[SomeAssemblyRequired]

Double Standards. Everywhere.

[crossmr]

- BrickQueen complies to taking off the claim, but some of Brick Spy's features were messed up with the claim

I don't believe this.

With Youtube's current system there are no penalties applied to your account unless you appeal twice and lose.

[BrickSpy]

I don't believe this.

With Youtube's current system there are no penalties applied to your account unless you appeal twice and lose.

I don't want to get into a debate on here, but unfortunately you are mistaken, when my account was placed in bad standing, I took screen shots of all the YouTube pages... Also you can read about the penalties in the terms of service. The notice on my account read "Because your account is in bad standing, you've lost access to some YouTube features" YouTube does not have time to investigate every claim, therefore they place your account into bad standing automatically whenever someone makes a copyright claim against you. I had to appeal and submit a counter notification to get my channel back into good standing, BQ also emailed me that she requested YT to put my account back into good standing. After several days, my account was placed back into good standing and all my features were restored...

Here is a list of features only available to people with good standing (this is directly from the TOS): https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797387?hl=en

Features available to accounts in good standing

The following YouTube features are among those restricted to users who are in good standing:

• Uploading videos as Unlisted
  
• Uploading videos that are longer than 15 minutes
  
• Uploading videos under Creative Commons licenses
  
• InVideo Programming
  
• Custom video thumbnails
  
• Live events and Hangouts on Air
  
• Appealing rejected Content ID claim disputes
  
• Sharing Private videos
  
• YouTube Video Editor
  

Edited March 18, 2015 by BrickSpy

[Legocity2713]

I used to take BrickQueen really seriously when I was younger, but now I'm just looking at her channel these days like "who cares."

I mean, her reviews don't really bring anything new to the table other than that she's a girl.

Hahahaha, and remember those girls who used to review LEGO back in 2012 but they'd title their videos names that were intriguing when the video actually had nothing to do with that? Ugh.

Houston, your entire statement is one hundred percent true. I don't think I could agree more on anything with anyone if I tried. So, those are my two cents.

[CrazyDalton777]

It makes me sad to see fiasco's like this in the LEGO community. I am not going to judge anyone here but hopefully in the future BS and BQ can put this behind them and build bridges.

[BrickQueen]

It makes me sad to see fiasco's like this in the LEGO community. I am not going to judge anyone here but hopefully in the future BS and BQ can put this behind them and build bridges.

It wasn't a fiasco. It was a misunderstanding that was resolved some time ago. Everyone on this thread blew the whole thing way out of proportion.

[Robianco]

I'd say this thread was the fiasco!

[Vindicare]

Wow...this is really something...

Why such a big deal about her showing some cleavage in videos? "because it's LEGO, meant for kids". Come on, really people? Do you look down on women who go in TRU-a kiss store, after all, for showing it? We're adults here, a little boob showing...really.. And talking about her looks...just sad.

I don't watch YT reviews, but why even bother mentioning her Ideas deal on your channel, BrickSpy? It seems to me, reading comments here & the other thread about Queen, she has controversy surrounding her. why even take a chance on getting yourself involved.