Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sam last won the day on September 23 2016

Sam had the most liked content!


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Sam's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. And the shots just keep coming. I for one am shocked, yet also laughing at the savagery.
  2. The word you want is immoral and no, that sentence is incorrect because I don't disagree with Twitch's business practices, so streaming with them wouldn't be immoral. You are confused. The contradiction you think you found doesn't exist.
  3. If you know that a public poll is ripe for sabotaging and will be invalidated because of it, then why even bother setting it up in the first place?
  4. Thank you. You saved me the trouble of reiterating it myself. This was the true point of my post quoting Traditional Games. You misunderstand. Not having a problem with something and it being weird are not mutually exclusive. I find his behavior weird in this instance, but not wrong, hence I don't have a problem with it.
  5. I second getting a down rep button. I don't know if he'd do the same thing in Jimmy's shoes, but I do know that if he were in those shoes and spewed the same vitriol as that post, then he wouldn't have a show much longer. Of course, if he were in charge, I doubt he would have had Nintendo on at all in the first place.
  6. Please read the entire post. If you had quoted my next sentence as well, you would see that I addressed about when there are no alternatives or when doing so is your only means of survival. Also let me make this clear before you or someone else misunderstands. I have no problem with Phil going back to Twitch. I'm glad he did it and it was the right move. It is not hippy bullshit. It is called morality. Just because it is apparently a foreign concept to you, does not mean that the majority of people don't possess it. It is not normal and no, people do not do it all the time. If they did, then business ethics wouldn't even exist, let alone be such an important concept.
  7. In that same vein, I've noticed a couple times now that Phil has stated very clearly that he does not agree with Twitch's business practices, yet he continues to do business with them. It's very weird to me cause normally if you disagree with the way a company or service runs, you don't continue to work or use said company or service. Now I understand that sometimes you don't have a choice because it is the only way you will survive or they are the only option, which is fine but you can no longer claim a moral high ground. It's just odd to me to so flagrantly point out that you are compromising your own morals, especially if you are boasting about it on the very service you are decrying.
  8. Indeed he is a tool and like any host of a show doing an interview or promotion, he is going to promote and saying nice things about whatever the subject, that's just the way it works, but and this is key here, Jimmy Fallon is also a horrendously bad actor. His excitement, specifically his physical fidgeting, was real. He went over the top a couple times, specifically during Mario Run which was more exaggerated, but he started losing his shit for real with the Switch. Why else would he keep interrupting Reggie or talk about how the Switch has a kickstand or the controllers come off for 2 players when the focus is supposed to be on Zelda? You don't have to be excited or hopeful or even like the Switch, but don't let your hatred and bitterness towards Nintendo turn you into a cynical, negative detractor.
  9. Do you not know what an incentive is? Why do you think Phil even has events as a goal on Patreon? He is using the promise of a stream to entice patrons. I know you understand this because you pledged a large amount for one of his past goals, the Sonic one I believe. Now I could be mistaken, but didn't you donate something like $200 in order to make sure that he reached the goal and did the event? We are talking about a stream where the allure is fan interaction, right? Phil's is lower quality because the other streamers offer greater fan interaction. The pop ups when someone donates or subs and the little sound clips that play are greater interaction with the stream chat. Thus objectively when speaking of a chill, fan interaction stream, the one that offers the greater amount of interaction with the chat and the viewers would be higher quality. Will Phil be doing shoutouts immediately during the chill steam or will it be like normal where he does them during breaks and stuff? If the latter, then that would be another example of lower quality in this specific case. So then are you suggesting that Phil not have a goal for his Patreon? Should he not do the events he's been doing every month? You do realize that he advertises the goals as if it were a product right? Phil is selling his Patreon to people using the goal as a reward.
  10. The stream is a good idea, that I agree on. However, I disagree about it being a good idea once it becomes a Patreon goal and Phil says he requires the extra funds from Patreon in order to even do it in order to mitigate the possible risk of loss from the stream, completely ignoring that the stream itself will generate some measure of profit(potentially even more than a normal day on YT) and acting like not uploading a single day's worth of videos will be disastrous for his channel/business. Actually the original word was emote. Nowhere did I mention shilling and it wasn't in the quote either, so I'm not sure where that came from. Perhaps saying streams was unclear, but I was specifically referring to the chill stream. Admittedly the quote doesn't translate over perfectly, but I thought using Phil's own words might get across to him better than using my own words. For the sake of clarity, let me put it this way: When others offer high quality chill streams for free, you probably shouldn't ask your fans for money to do a lower quality chill stream. It makes you look bad. Phil is asking everyone to give him $1200 to do a chill stream. I know that Patreon is for supporting creator's and in this case to keep Phil in business, but that is the goal this time, that is the incentive for people to pledge. It is as simple as he gets $1200, he does the chill stream. He doesn't get $1200, he doesn't do the stream. He even posted earlier explaining why people should give him money for it. So yes, he is asking me to pay for something. That is what I am talking about. How are you measuring most successful in this case? Is it by attendance to the stream or views on the videos when they got posted? Cause wasn't it the same goal level as you've had every month? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't recall you getting a lot in extra pledges for that goal, so I'm just curious why you consider it one of the most successful. Seems a difficult thing to judge.
  11. Can you cite what part of the definition on that page proves BrightsideViking wrong? I read through it, but I'm having trouble finding a part of that says parodies can not be comprised of the original work. This is a wonderful point and I don't know why we are arguing about it either, but I must say that I am enjoying the discussion. It may be pointless since the only thing that will truly decide whether they are legal or illegal is a court ruling, but it's just nice to have an interesting and heated discussion about something that isn't in the random thoughts thread.
  12. I would suggest you pay attention to elections then because that example you gave happens a lot in politics. Campaigns are full of out of context soundbites from their opponent. But that isn't even what is happening. No one is splicing together audio clips of you to make you say things you didn't and in my experience, the moments taken are rarely out of context. I'd be careful making that claim in general if I were you cause that's something people can actual research and prove what the context was and if it was taken out of it. In general, TIHYDP's don't have much creator voice. Most are just select moments of your playthrough mixed with comments, but no outside narrative or someone telling the viewer what to think. As such, they aren't providing a different context so they normally have to include the context to make the moment make sense. Otherwise, people would just see it and would be unable to judge it since they wouldn't know what you were talking about. Adding to that thought of minimal creator narrative, the videos themselves don't say that you are a person who doesn't deserve success nor do they insinuate that this is every waking moment of you playing video games. I have not seen a single tihydp that says that. Those are you own reactions to it, your own views and bias. Now, a viewer could come to those same conclusions, but that is a product of their own beliefs and thoughts, much like people having different interpretations of movies or art or a book. The only thing they concretely say is that you are a terrible gamer and I'm sad to tell you, but that's the truth. Your skill level at video games is bad. So I'm not denying that they present you in a negative light or that they are unfair, but that doesn't make them slander or an untruth. Misrepresentation isn't slander. If only focusing on the bad parts was, then scathing, one-sided reviews would be slander and they are not. *Bolded some words for emphasis Um..Phil, what do you think legal counsel is exactly? Why is the CinemaSins guy paying for lawyers opinions meaningless, but the end all be all when you do it? Do you think legal counsel is something different than consulting a lawyer? Have you been getting something different? Is it just because your "legal counsel" aligned with your own opinion and what you wanted to hear? Seriously, this makes no sense and stuff like this is also why people don't believe you about the legal counsel and don't take your opinion seriously on these matters. You make it so obvious that you don't care what anyone else says if it disagrees with you and that you will disregard it no matter what. Edit: Wait, @Escanor did you just ask what a legal definition is? in a discussion concerning legality and court cases? Are you for real? Dude, just bow out now; this is no place for you. If you stay, you are only going to make an even bigger fool of yourself.
  13. If people are going to use the word slander and describe something as slanderous, then can you please make sure you know the actual definition of the word? " to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone" that is from Merrian-Webster, but since we are dealing with legal matters how about a legal definition, this one is from dictionary.law.com; "oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed". For further and more in-depth reading, here is a link to another legal definition http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander I abhor quoting definitions to people, but this has gone on long enough with slander being misused and it needs to stop. I blame you for this, Phil. I don't want to point a finger, but it is obvious where all the users on this forum got the incorrect definition from. We all make mistakes, but you've had plenty of chances to learn the actual meaning of the word, especially if you've been consulting legal counsel who would definitely correct you on your usage of the word. Stop it! As for the topic of TIHYDP and why I brought up slander specifically, how exactly is Phil's own undoctored footage a false statement? You notice how every definition of slander or defamation in general requires that it be an untruth? Does anyone care to enlighten me on how showing someone Phil's own gameplay, the same you'd see if you watch his own playthroughs, creates an a false representation? No doubt it is one-sided and negative and even skewed, but none of that makes it untrue. He did die all those times in action games. He fell off all those ledges in platformers. He crashed into all those things in racing games. The footage isn't made up, so how is it slanderous?
  14. See, I'm with you there. The idea of someone seeing that and mistaking it as Phil being serious, is indeed laughable. The issue is I'm not sure how many people truly believe that. I've seen comments saying it, but I always took those comments as exaggerations either for the sake of being humorous or to emphasize how appalled they were. Much like how Phil was overreacting and reacting in an opposite manner in an attempt at humor. You can't take all those comments at face value and 100% serious and not do the same for Phil's commentary during that scene. That would be a double standard. If we are willing to believe that Phil was joking, and he obviously was, then we must give the ones who comment that same concession of not taking every single word they say literally.
  15. Yes. You are welcome for being civil, though I'm not sure why you'd think I wouldn't be about this. Can I ask why the question in the first place? Was I unclear? Are you illustrating a point? Did you post this in the wrong thread? I may be mistaken, but it sounds more like a response to what was said in the "Why do people get so angry" thread located here: https://thekingofhate.com/forums/topic/2822-why-do-people-get-so-emotionally-angry-when-phil-does-the-following-things/?page=2
  • Create New...