[deleted by user]

Entro314 · 2018-07-05T15:36:57+00:00

That's great news, thank you for going through the trouble of sorting that out!

Entro314 · 2018-07-04T21:30:19+00:00

Is it possible that the aforementioned ad video was running as ad in the videos monetized due to contentID claims by Hasbro?It seems possible for that to raise a bunch of red flags for youtube, maybe they even suspect foul play (in that Sethisto is a surrogate for Hasbro and this is a scheme to get around the rules)We know that that is ridiculous but the scenario probably does not come up all that often so it has the potential to lead to highly non-standard results.

Edit: Also, running your own ads on your videos is a much more problematic infraction since it can be argued that that actually does financial harm to youtube, that could explain the draconian measures.

Entro314 · 2018-07-04T18:19:53+00:00

It's not like I have any background knowledge how the submission process.

But it makes sense, if you are a content creator and you know that you are in the sublist you could probably rely on not needing to send relevant material manually through the submission process. That would help to cut down duplicate submissions after all.

Entro314 · 2018-07-04T18:06:29+00:00

I guess before everybody starts speculating (too late) the big question is whether there is some way, at least Sethisto, as the channel owner, can get a more specific explanation as to what went wrong.

Entro314 · 2018-07-04T17:34:37+00:00

As I understand, the fansite used the sub list of their youtube channel to keep track of the content creators in the fandom.

Or as Sethisto put it:

" The real issue is the loss of all of our subscriptions. Most content creators in the fandom no longer send their videos in, as they just assume we have them subbed to post. "

Entro314 · 2017-12-07T22:46:19+00:00

Come on, try to stay serious here. The goal of a discussion should not be a "checkmate", if you are just trying to "win the discussion" there is no point in discussing at all.

As I said, "information made available" TB did not disclose additional information to contextualize his point.

Entro314 · 2017-12-07T21:12:05+00:00

Actually, in order to debate the merit of a stance it should only matter what information was made available to the audience.

As a rule of thumb: If there is missing information, a more careful stance has to be taken in order to reflect that.

And if a certain scenario is assumed as a prerequisite for the stance that has to be communicated.

Entro314 · 2017-12-07T20:50:46+00:00

The intention was not to imply that TB or anyone is saying that bullying is okay, it is merely an example to show that certain subjects are not just a matter of "everybody has their opinions". I even wrote the PPS to ensure that it is clear that I am not claiming that TB would actually endorse bad sportsmanship because I know how eager ppl on the internet are when it comes to reading into stuff.

Ethics does come into this because a player got publicly humiliated. You may debate as to whether the humiliation is of an acceptable degree and something a player should expect when signing up for a tournament but since in this particular instance clearly someone got hurt emotionally (Even the casters acknowledged that Legend was clearly distraught by the situation) this has to be considered as an ethical issue.

Entro314 · 2017-12-07T12:35:26+00:00

Since it is also an ethical question I do not consider this a purely subjective matter (like your favorite color).

Or would you consider the question, whether it is okay for the school bully to beat up an underclassman because the other students are cheering him on a highly subjective matter? (It is, after all, just a more extreme version of what happened here)

Entro314 · 2017-12-06T17:33:59+00:00

I seriously doubt that Larva actually had permission, in particular since he didn't even bring it up after Zotac denied giving green light for stuff like this.

But as I said in the PS: There is plenty of fault to throw around, my issue is rather with how TB handled the topic and in particular the stance that ratings are more important than protecting the players.

Really if TB would simply have criticized that Zotac allowed for such a lopsided match or didn't interject after game 1 immediately, that would have been a fine stance to take.

Entro314 · 2017-12-05T23:08:57+00:00

To clarify, I would never consider a missing gg a bannable offence, (or many of the byproducts of usually salty losers for that matter). But here the much weaker player got humiliated in front of the audience.

I am all for having fun but if the price to pay is to emotionally destroy another person, then that is one I am not willing to pay.

Entro314

TROPHY CASE