Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    means you forgot the checks Patreon was sending out to closed accounts. What was the amounts they were complaining patreon was going to cost them?
    First time I hear about this, honestly have no idea what it is about, if you have something I should read feel free to drop a link.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    Where?

    Here is the official announcement

    https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com...-some-changes/

    All they said was they are removing the comment section because they felt like there were trolls in there.
    Starting this week, Rotten Tomatoes will launch the first of several phases of updates that will refresh and modernize our Audience Rating System. We’re doing it to more accurately and authentically represent the voice of fans, while protecting our data and public forums from bad actors.
    Their whole article is aimed at this, addressing how these systems have been abused (bombed) by folks who weren't using them for their intended purpose. Do you need it literally spelled out? Because that's the core message of the whole post, dude.

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaderas View Post
    Did he call Matt Loter (or whatever his name was) a cuck? I know he's said the same of other people, but don't remember that portion.
    Oh yah, they had a very long feud.

    Also, he's claiming loss of revenue due to potential lost connections from being banned from Gencon as part of the incident. He had several appointments (not sure if there is a better word for it), there to meet with vendors to talk about and promote games.
    Yep, which didn’t exist before he became the altright voice of MTG and now the quartering. His MTGO ban, is directly responsible for his popularity spike. How many videos did he have on star city games blocking his entrance or the pro tour ban? His revenue is directly tied to his shift in programming.

    I'm fairly certain he will win his lawsuit, but get much less money than what he is seeking. Still, I cannot excuse Matt Loter, a guy who TEACHES Krav Maga, for attacking this guy from behind. Honestly, he should have had criminal charges filed against him, as he's a trained martial artist. Also, he's a game store owner, and I find his violent ideology a little disturbing.
    The guy came up, asked his name, then knocked him out. Yeah, quartering is going to win that one... fucking idiot... who does that? Just talk shit at him, like a normal angry person. Yelling is fun... I promise... lol
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Their whole article is aimed at this, addressing how these systems have been abused (bombed) by folks who weren't using them for their intended purpose. Do you need it literally spelled out? Because that's the core message of the whole post, dude.
    "Bad actors"

    What is a bad actor? Do you know?

    I thought "bombed" by defenition meant people were abusing the system, creating multiple accounts and abusing the crap out of it.
    All we have to go on that post is "bad actors"...
    Am i a bad actor if i "dont want to see" capt marvel?

  5. #85
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    57,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    The guy came up, asked his name, then knocked him out. Yeah, quartering is going to win that one... fucking idiot... who does that? Just talk shit at him, like a normal angry person. Yelling is fun... I promise... lol
    While I don't think it's a winning argument, I'd love for a case like that to drag out the old "fighting words doctrine" defense. It's never used, but it's still technically on the books as precedent; shit-talking someone long enough is, in legal theory in the USA, grounds that justify punching them the fuck out.

    Before anyone shits on me for saying that, I want this not because I support the violence, but because this is an issue that needs clearing up, legally speaking. They need to negate that precedent. Making the case in court would either allow the courts to overthrow that precedent forever, or they would allow the argument, and it would be up to Congress to say "what the fuck, let's get a new bipartisan law to fix that nonsense".

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by CryotriX View Post
    First time I hear about this, honestly have no idea what it is about, if you have something I should read feel free to drop a link.
    It was in one of those threads about it. I don’t seek that shit out, so I only see the best ones their supporters choose to post here. One of them was bitching about revenue loss for patreon and showed his less than a month cash out of over 10k. That’s more than I make in a months and I’m close to Sr level.

    Remember... in order for patreon to care about a boycott, those leaving had to have been generating a significant amount, for a percentage of it going to patreon causing a significant impact to force policy change. That inherently means that altright rhetoric is generating enough money through patreon, that leaving them without a percentage of that income, would cause enough impact to change their policy.
    Last edited by Felya; 2019-02-26 at 08:02 PM.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    "Bad actors"

    What is a bad actor? Do you know?

    I thought "bombed" by defenition meant people were abusing the system, creating multiple accounts and abusing the crap out of it.
    All we have to go on that post is "bad actors"...
    Am i a bad actor for disliking capt marvel?
    So you literally need it spelled out.

    "Bad actors" are folks abusing the systems and not using them for their intended purpose. This includes using them as part of some stupid fucking internet culture war, which is not what they were intended for and not what users agreed to use them for when they singed up for accounts.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    While I don't think it's a winning argument, I'd love for a case like that to drag out the old "fighting words doctrine" defense. It's never used, but it's still technically on the books as precedent; shit-talking someone long enough is, in legal theory in the USA, grounds that justify punching them the fuck out.
    I disagree... I saw a guy without a shirt a while back, crossing the street, with a giant swastika on his shoulder. I should be punished if I couldn’t control my urge to hit the gas.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf

  9. #89
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    57,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    I disagree... I saw a guy without a shirt a while back, crossing the street, with a giant swastika on his shoulder. I should be punished if I couldn’t control my urge to hit the gas.
    Hence the last half of that post.

    I don't want that case to be all "rah, punch all the dudes". I want it to clear up the "fighting words" nonsense and eliminate it. Either it should be illegal, and the courts can throw out that precedent, or it is definitely legal and Congress needs to.

    This was me pointing out that the fighting words doctrine is stupid, but still exists.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    So you literally need it spelled out.

    "Bad actors" are folks abusing the systems and not using them for their intended purpose. This includes using them as part of some stupid fucking internet culture war, which is not what they were intended for and not what users agreed to use them for when they singed up for accounts.

    Is that clear enough for you?
    So a person with an opinion is a "bad actor"

    Im a bad actor if i dont want to see Capt Marvel.

    We might aswell remove the "user review" system. Because is also going to have "bad actors"

    Either people created multiple accounts or didnt.
    If people did NOT create multiple accounts...there was nothing wrong in the first place.

    If people create multiple accounts then the friggin user reviews are also pointless. The whole site is pointless. Everything is pointless.

    edit: Sorry if im stealing your time. You are probably a busy moderator...i dont want to keep you on hold for long :S but i can never shut up
    Last edited by Togabito; 2019-02-26 at 08:07 PM.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    "Bad actors"

    What is a bad actor? Do you know?

    I thought "bombed" by defenition meant people were abusing the system, creating multiple accounts and abusing the crap out of it.
    All we have to go on that post is "bad actors"...
    Am i a bad actor if i "dont want to see" capt marvel?
    Their goal wasn’t to be disengenous. You are a bad actor, if you complain about a movie you haven’t seen, because you think it has a political agenda. Not a war movie or a political drama... no... a fucking superhero movie, because it dares to have a chick as a lead actress. The humanity!!!!
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    So a person with an opinion is a "bad actor"
    Literally not what I wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    Im a bad actor if i dont want to see Capt Marvel.
    Also, literally not what I wrote.

    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    We might aswell removing the "user review" system. Because is also going to have "bad actors"
    Except that RT literally just made a blog post, that you linked, detailing how they're going to combat bad actors and address the abuse of these systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    Either people created multiple accounts or didnt.
    If people did NOT create multiple accounts...there was nothing wrong in the first place.
    Unless they're seeing coordinated efforts to manipulate user polls, which would similarly break their rules I imagine.

    Are you even reading anything you link or others post?

  13. #93
    Anung un Rama Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    57,758
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    Their goal wasn’t to be disengenous. You are a bad actor, if you complain about a movie you haven’t seen, because you think it has a political agenda. Not a war movie or a political drama... no... a fucking superhero movie, because it dares to have a chick as a lead actress. The humanity!!!!
    And again; the whole kafuffle seems to be about one thing Brie Larson said during the press tour, which they're lying about, because what she said wasn't remotely objectionable.

    Also that she's a girl superhero, but they usually hide behind the former.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    Im a bad actor if i dont want to see Capt Marvel.
    I’m sorry, but you are. You are asking about political motivation of reviewing a super hero movie. You are not talking about hotel Rowanda or black hawk down.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And again; the whole kafuffle seems to be about one thing Brie Larson said during the press tour, which they're lying about, because what she said wasn't remotely objectionable.

    Also that she's a girl superhero, but they usually hide behind the former.
    It cannot be that simple, when people like @CryotriX are complaining there are no edgy movies, when this movie is being shit on, because of the “edgy” thing an actress said... not even in the movie.

    Edit: Maybe Shakespeare was right...
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf

  15. #95
    Are they politically biased? Yes.

    Are the reviews so fucked up and out of touch because they are biased? No.

    They are so fucked up because they are all sold out to the studios. So they will rant and rave about any garbage the big studios churn out and are invested in seriously no matter whether that thing is any good or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground
    Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    So a person with an opinion is a "bad actor"
    Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's a movie review site, not a place to fling shit at actors' personal life like Twitter or Facebook.

    An opinion that's wholly based on the content in the movie is acceptable; an opinion making personal attacks against the actors that isn't about their acting in the movie, isn't.
    "My successes are my own, but my failures are due to extremist leftist liberals" - Party of Personal Responsibility

    Prediction for the future

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Except that RT literally just made a blog post, that you linked, detailing how they're going to combat bad actors and address the abuse of these systems.



    Unless they're seeing coordinated efforts to manipulate user polls, which would similarly break their rules I imagine.

    Are you even reading anything you link or others post?
    Maybe i missed it at first.
    Im going to give it a read again realllllly slow.

    Maybe i can figure it out on my own. (bad english here)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PosPosPos View Post
    Well, in case you haven't noticed, it's a movie review site, not a place to fling shit at actors' personal life like Twitter or Facebook.

    An opinion that's wholly based on the content in the movie is acceptable; an opinion making personal attacks against the actors that isn't about their acting in the movie, isn't.
    Its entirely alright to "not going to see the movie"
    It just shows populations personal opinions and tastes.

    SJW or Not, racist, left, right, wathever the agenda or what happened in interviews with the actress.

    Is alright to see a metric of who isnt going to watch the movie. IMO
    Last edited by Togabito; 2019-02-26 at 08:18 PM.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Togabito View Post
    Maybe i can figure it out on my own. (bad english here)
    Fair. If anything is confusing let me know, happy to try to re-write it in a way that's easier to understand if that's the case and would make it easier for ya.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    It cannot be that simple, when people like @CryotriX are complaining there are no edgy movies, when this movie is being shit on, because of the “edgy” thing an actress said... not even in the movie.

    Edit: Maybe Shakespeare was right...
    What she said is not edgy at all, as Endus observed "wasn't remotely objectionable.", it's boring "inclusivityTM", mainstream as it can be.

    The movies I mentioned were with people getting shot, getting raped, shooting heroin, killing people in the streets as a neonazi, then finding the truth later on, overdosing, going through withdrawals, stealing, evading the law, killing people by mistake, going on religious rants while murdering everyone in a room, Pumpkin and Honey-Bunny robbing shit up. Hell, I'm pretty sure Trainspotting had a baby that died because of being forgotten, since the parents were that high.

    Oh, what about the intense, consuming love between 2 mass murderers? Portraying the law enforcement as being just as corrupt and horrible? Taking on MSM - in the damn 90s, before the culture wars?

    This was fun, and it was not boring, there was nothing PC about these movies. There were no real heroes, just darkness... with maybe a glimpse of hope.

    So yeh, I cannot see how "let's be nice to everyone hurr durr, make stuff diverse and inclusive hurr durr" is "edgy". it's just boring PC crap filled with the typical fake cultural left stuff.

    "started paying attention to what my press days looked like and the critics reviewing movies, and noticed it appeared to be overwhelmingly white male." After that, she "decided to make sure my press days were more inclusive"

    And then the PR kicked in to "clarify":

    Sitting down with FOX DC as part of doing the press rounds for Captain Marvel, Larson was asked about how her aforementioned statement about wanting to see a more diverse group of journalists doing junkets being taken out of context. While the actress didn't seem like she was in-the-know the her comment has been misconstrued online, she acknowledged it and reiterated that she's not trying to alienate any group, all she wants is for everyone to have the opportunity. "What I’m looking for is to bring more seats up to the table. No one is getting their chair taken away. There’s not less seats at the table, there’s just more seats at the table,” she said.

    Sarah Jeong Lite. I can't see any edge in this whatsoever. It's boring, and irrelevant.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Fair. If anything is confusing let me know, happy to try to re-write it in a way that's easier to understand if that's the case and would make it easier for ya.
    ok, ive read it again...realllly slow...

    I saw nothing regarding "how they will rule out bad actors"

    Here is what i saw:
    1) We are going to remove the "want to see" feature
    2)disabling the comment function prior to a movie’s release date
    3)making some layout changes to the site

    Am i blind?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •