SkunkyArt | SantiagoOTSeas — Vyond Styled Commentaries Suck!!!

The commentators complain about Michael or Kris' intro being plagiarised, but they're fine (as in don't complain) when anything else is plagiarised, such as the entire script of someone else's rant on GoAnimate/Vyond haters, as an example. Almost all rants on haters of a subject (especially GoAnimate or Vyond), will result in the "more like" part being "[subject] fans", every time, guaranteed.

The "correction" line. It's used in a way that counts as disagreeing with someone's opinion, which in turn begets the act of being disrespectful to people over an opinion as well as potentially forcing theirs upon the one who made the original video. This negates their claims that they respect people's opinions.

The line "Now, I know this [video] is going to suck", despite the fact that these commentaries can be even worse than the rants that they're commentating on due to their lack of advice, research, and information done on subjects. Again, if the video didn't suck to the creator, the commentary wouldn't exist (which would be good).

Following #2 and #6, the commentators may say that fictional characters don't have opinions, yet they use them for their commentaries and even change their expressions based on the uploader's reaction to a subject/segment in a video. Very rarely, they end up roleplaying as fictional characters in the commentaries, completely contradicting what they say!

The scene of Peter Griffin going "Oh my god, who the hell cares" or Dr. Robotnik (Eggman) in the Sonic movie going "Nobody cares!" being used when it comes to a segment that the uploader doesn't care about, but they leave that segment in, entirely unedited, and even complain about them.

They complain about a mock name in a rant, yet they may make insults which are either just as bad, or even worse than the name they're complaining about. What do you expect when you make a commentary on a rant?

Likewise, they claim that the "failure adventures" term is getting old, but they make these commentaries and recycle other GoAnimate-styled clichés that have been used for years, without even trying to expand on them.

They might say that their commentary is for constructive criticism purposes only, yet they argue, harass, mock and even lie about the video or original creator that they're commentating on. This is not what constructive criticism is, and it's mainly used as an excuse for their cyberbullying act, regardless if it was their intention to do so or not.

They tend to be fine with GoAnimate/Vyond-styled rants and salutes being criticised, but not these commentaries, as those who hear about someone giving constructive criticism towards them and why they're bad will receive unnecessary backlash due to people being so unbelievably toxic over them. Check the last reason on this page for more information.

When they're repeatedly asked to stop making these commentaries due to their controversial nature, only to say that they'll continue making them because privating them would be a waste of time, when making these commentaries (and approvals) in general is a waste of time as well.

They may ask the question "What does [character] have to do with this rant?", yet people should be saying the same thing about the fictional characters being used in the commentaries. What do they have to do with them? We'd rather be looking at a black screen for the parts that the video isn't playing.

They'll skip the loud parts of commentaries, but they abuse the volume setting in places that didn't need that treatment, especially over minor things that the communities take out of context.

One person of a commentary chain may say that another one's commentary will suck just because they disagree with it without explaining, when in reality, all the commentaries in that chain would suck, because they are equally bad to the others, and nothing will change that.