Jump to content
The King of Hate Forums

Sam

Members
  • Posts

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Sam

  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
  16. Hmm, that's a good question. It seems like stand-up comedy evolved to be much more adult and edgy in order to get it's laughs and it's never really looked back. Giving the audience what they want after all so can't really fault it, I suppose. I too am having trouble thinking of a family-friendly stand-up comedian anymore. You already mentioned Jim Gaffigan who is magical. I wish I could explain how that man can be so funny without even touching several topics that other comics base their entire act upon. His ability to talk about food endlessly without it getting stale is some type of witchcraft. I'm hesitant to mention him because he hasn't been current for awhile due to his age and also cause it turns out he's some type of monster, but Bill Cosby was always family-friendly in his stand-up routine. Sadly, I can't think of anyone else really at the moment.
  17. I'm not really sure what my post that you quoted has to do with those two questions, but I'm happy to answer anyway. Yes, repeating a task would be one of the main purposes and benefits of using a bot. While I am unsure of the logistics of such an endeavor, they most assuredly could be used for something like that and I believe there have been such uses for them. You can do some pretty amazing things with scripting. I don't think the existence or use of a like/dislike bot is absurd. I think using them as a scapegoat to explain away the dislikes when there is a whole large community of real people who dislike you is absurd.
  18. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUGGMr7XLrY&lc=z12ospvhipuxxdy1w22qcb3rllvpfp5ay04 Go back and actually look at your video, Phil. The video has 264 comments. 20-30 of those are listed as 1 year ago or earlier. The other 234-244 are all listed as 2 years ago, which given the video is from December of 2013, is YouTube rounding. So no, the comments were not formed over the years, most of them were made early in the life of the video. At this point, no one can pinpoint the exact day each one was made, but it is very clear that this isn't the work of years of the detractors piling on and routinely adding new comments. You are wrong. You are just remembering it how you want it to be, instead of how it actually is. You are making things up based on your memory being rose-tinted. Don't do that. Also, who was talking about the entirety of your videos? I was only speaking of the one single Walking Dead video, the same one I linked above. That's what the consensus of opinion was in reference to. I'm not arguing in favor of the vlog someone made. I at no point said the majority thought all of your videos were a certain way. I'm pointing out that your use of overreaction and humor in uncomfortable situations didn't work in this particular instance and I'm suggesting that it may not have worked in other similar situations but that's only a hypothesis at this point as I haven't checked the comments of those videos. If you'd like to argue against the vlog or the portrayal of you as sadistic, then go for it. I agree that two examples is hardly enough evidence to make such a statement. Just please don't lump me into that argument, cause I'm not part of it. See previous paragraph. I would like to add though that indeed looking at the views, the other parts have similar numbers of viewers. However as you pointed out, these videos are years old and views could be acquired and built up over the years. Technically, there could have been a huge drop off and backlash from Pt 7 wehere the Clementine scene happened and people could have only come back years later to finish or watch the rest. That's very unlikely and not what I think happened at all, but the point is, we don't know how exactly what order things happened in. Unfortunately it's already been established that we can't use your memory of how it went because it is incorrect. A look at the video itself proves that. Again, not what I was arguing. There is a reason I didn't quote that part about thinking you'd actually revel in the pain of a young child. And that also isn't what you were arguing to begin with. You didn't make the statement about being intelligent in regard to the accusation of you being a sadist; you were solely talking about comedy and being able to tell it is a joke. Basically, that anyone who found your joke unfunny or in bad taste was stupid. In other words, if they didn't appreciate your humor, they were wrong. Are you unable to see how ludicrous that is? Sadly, I fear you probably don't since you are still doing the exact same thing in the response I quoted. It's a bit ironic that you would respond with the exact same thing I was complaining about you doing. You haven't presented any factual evidence; it's just your opinion. And yes, you can help it that people get insulted when you call them stupid, you can not call them stupid. It's very simple and I know you are aware of it because it happens to you in reverse a lot. Whenever someone gives you grief or calls you stupid for failing in a game or making a mistake, you get very insulted. Yet messing up something that is considered easy by the common person could be considered factual evidence of stupidity, so technically they can't help it when they call you an idiot. Sounds downright asinine, doesn't it? TLDR: pretend someone is talking to you the same way you are talking in what i quoted. And I thought I went on tangents. Seriously, none of this has anything to do with the topic on hand. I'd give some thoughts on what you said here, but I'd really rather not go off topic and also I don't want to pick on you. Like others, I don't want this thread to become a negative dogpile and while I find myself disagreeing with your reasoning for things a lot because I just don't find it sound, I'm not your enemy, Phil. I'm not against you. I just want to make sure things are looked at from all sides and kept free from misinformation.
  19. No offense was meant. I just didn't know if you wanted a serious discussion of the why because there is a intersting one to be had I think about human behavior and why society reacts the way it does to certain actions. Your responses have made it clear that is not what you are after. You just want to complain about the people who get angry about this for the sake of your own entertainment, hence you are trolling in this one instance. This is not a bad thing and I'm not condemning you for it, so don't take it that way. Comedy, in and of itself, is not a defense. Do not try to use it like one. Comedy must be performed and it can be done well or poorly. You did poorly in this case. That isn't my opinion as I don't care to judge other people's sense of humor. That is a fact supported by the comments of your video. I don't know why you think most people got it and it was only a few who complained, because the feedback you were given paints a different picture. The comments are extremely one-sided of people telling you they were either disgusted by it or didn't find it funny or that it felt forced and made them cringe because you were trying to hard. If we base it on the likes and dislikes, it would seem to be more of a 50/50 split, which let me tell you for a joke, that's not a success. Point is, for the majority of people, they didn't find your use of that specific comedic technique funny. I imagine this is something you have experienced with other videos where you tried something similar such as the torture scene in MGS. Overreaction for the sake of ridiculousness doesn't appear to be your strong suit, just accept it as a misstep instead of trying to defend it for no good reason. We all have things we aren't that great at; it's okay. Besides this was in the past, so it doesn't even really matter anymore. As an aside, I really wish you wouldn't use that "if you're intelligent" argument. You use it with a number of things, typically when you are upset I believe, and you may think it helps you or makes your position seem stronger, but it doesn't and in fact has the opposite effect. It doesn't promote intelligence, but foolishness. Trying to coerce people into agreeing with you by playing on their desire to feel superior only serves to make your defense all that more hollow. Plus, it makes you sound like an elitist jerk, which I sincerely doubt you want to do, and that's liable to alienate people.
  20. I will keep an eye on this and try to round up some data because I feel like things of this nature need data to back them up. They require too much extra faith to be taken at face value when there is a less complicated answer. However, you kind of missed my second point of attributing this to dislike bots opens the gates for someone to claim this same thing but in reverse. I will use the SFV rant as an example. Someone could just as easily say that reason the dislikes are always within 100 of the likes is because a like bot is being used and someone paid for them to keep the likes at a certain ratio. That sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But it's just as plausible as the dislike bots being used, since there is no data being presented currently to back either side up. Maybe I will be able to change that if I can get some good data from your next couple non-gameplay uploads, but for the time being, I think it is foolhardy to give people yet another thing to potentially accuse you of.
  21. This whole dislike bots answer seems a bit farfetched to me. Not that they aren't a thing or that they don't potentially get used, I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe they are the culprit in this specific case. It's unnecessarily complicated when there is a simpler answer that relies on fewer assumptions and doesn't involve someone spending hundreds of dollars a month as per Suspreme's calculation. I know such an idea supports the narrative that Phil likes to push of the detractors all being unhinged or having something wrong with them and that's the only reason they dislike him, but let's be honest here, does the idea of someone using bots and spending hundreds a month just to dislike DSP's videos really seem that likely or even make sense when weighed against there simply being that many people who clicked dislike? It's no secret that there are a lot of people who dislike DSP or that people in general as a group have a tendency to conform or that YouTube viewers are all that discerning when disliking a video, so all of the dislikes being real is easily the simplest and most plausible answer. In this case I have to abide by Occam's Razor. Also, attributing it to dislike bots/paid dislikes raises a second problem. The opposite could be true as well. If we consider that bots are used, then what would stop Phil or one of his fans from paying for or using like bots? I don't think this is the case, but if we are going to say the reason for so many dislikes are from bots without any proof, then I could just as easily say that the only reason DSP's videos get as many likes as they do is because of bots. There is just as much evidence for one as the other and so such explanations are fruitless and are a road I don't wish for this topic to continue to go down.
  22. I can't tell if this is a serious topic, as in you don't understand why people would react to these things and are truthfully asking or if you are just bored and trolling a little for some entertainment. I"m going to go with the latter because even if you don't agree with those people's reactions, it should be fairly simple to understand the reasoning behind it. If you are serious and do legitimate want to know, then others such as Squid_Girl, Nation, and Chachamaru have already given good explanations I think, but my advice would be to take Phil out of the equation. Take those instances and apply them to something else, that isn't playing video games or DSP making a video of him playing video games. For instance, the one about not being a good sport, pretend it is a pick-up basketball game or for the one about insulting devs, pretend someone is insulting the camera crew or the sound editor while watching a movie. Hopefully applying it to similar, but still slightly different, situations will help make this clear.
  23. Yeah, but they are pretty bad posters, in my opinion. If they are supposed to be making me excited for the movie, then they are having the opposite effect. I get that they are only showing part of the zords, in a teasing fashion, but it is lost on me when I have trouble figuring out what part of the zord I'm looking at exactly.
  24. https://twitter.com/TheyCallMeDSP/status/779237670941696000 Nice to see that rant last night was a bunch of hypocritical bullshit. Stuff like this is why Phil has a bad reputation and isn't taken seriously. This shit is why people mock him calling himself real or give him grief for saying different variations of "I've got to be honest with you..." Also, how are you supposed to consider his reviews legit when he says one thing and does another. No, he's not giving it another chance. He's only playing it for some quick, easy money from people looking for Urien gameplay. Being so blatantly two-faced vexes me to no end and the fact that such action only hurts him more just makes it that much more aggravating for me.
  25. Can you elaborate on this? I don't fully understand what you mean. This would make sense, I think, if it were something like just telling people to go donate to x charity or like what the SoK did with the water charity. For something like this though, where they are selling and advertising a good/service with the proceeds going to charity, I'm not sure how you could not name the group involved.
×
×
  • Create New...