lordawesome7

opinions on sirfoch being censored?

222 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

if you guys don't know tl;dr SirFoch spoke negatively about WG premium tank policy and got threaten (and thus censored) by EU branch of WG and in turn removed his community contributor status (his video afterwards here: https://youtu.be/VT36zcdnAKM )

 

as a result, people got pissed and you can see the end result yourself on the release video or look down here

 

vePGP8G.png

 

8wGW7yj.png

 

 

 

i really don't want WG to go down the route that gajin did with censorship, but this is the first step to just that, i am even less inclined to spend money then i already am, even if its just EU, i am not happy with what is happening put simply

 

all we can do as a community is let them know we don't condone this and they will greatly damage both EU and NA communities if they continue such actions

 

PS: feel free to move this to another sub forum if it doesn't fit here, wasn't 100% on that

 

Edit: found the video that was taken down if you want to see what was taken down https://www.facebook.com/WorldofTanksPolskaFanPage/videos/1071566622943302/?hc_location=ufi

 

Edit: staff response to community backlash; which its one thing to remove his CC status but pulling his video down is actively censoring him, no way to downplay that (more here : http://forum.worldoftanks.eu/index.php?/topic/629174-wg-going-batshit-over-ccs/page__p__14293729#entry14293729 )

 

inLBJl6.png

 

Edited by lordawesome7
in post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circ also took down his KV-122 video. They thought people wouldn't notice, but they did.

I feel like Foch may have had it coming because the video didn't seem like much of a review, but at the same time it does feel like WG is going down the drain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen teh original vid, but it is possible it was above and beyond what should be "acceptable" from a community contributor, Or it's entirely possible this is WG over reacting , so much seems to come out of that European office.

In my opinion- it's fair for them to ask that CC's conduct themselves with a certain standard. Whether or not this was "slanderous" I kinda doubt, but it's possible having heard some of Foch's rants before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Him losing CC is not very surprising and I don't know why WG gave it to him in the first place knowing his trademark style, but threatening with copyright takedowns clearly crosses the line. Not like this is gonna change anything though, people (including on wotlabs) will keep buying BS premiums and WG will keep releasing them until the game dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO him losing his CC-status is understandable and fair, however since they took down his video and threatened him with further DMCA-strikes they crossed a line that should not be crossed as they don´t even have the rights to do this (but fuck google and especially fuck wargayming I guess...)

I certainly won´t pay those fuckers anything ever again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just watched his original video, and I think WG went pretty easy on him. He has valid points about this tank being another in a long series intended to force players to fire prem ammo, but if his intent was to make WG think again he went the wrong way about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Gryphon_ said:

I've just watched his original video, and I think WG went pretty easy on him. He has valid points about this tank being another in a long series intended to force players to fire prem ammo, but if his intent was to make WG think again he went the wrong way about it. 

Depends how you look at it.

By taking the action they did WG acknowledged that firstly CCs have enough sway in the community to worry about them. They also will be very aware that parts of the community think their direction is shit. And finally WG have now outwardly moved to censor those who are critical of their practices. To me his actions certainly made WG and the community think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think perhaps people need a lesson on what censorship means.  If the state restricts what you as a consenting adult can communicate with other consenting adults - that is censorship.  If an entity that you enter into a business agreement with restricts what you, as their business partner, can say regarding matters of their business - that is called work.

WG did not censor Foch, they terminated a business relationship - which either party can do at any time with or without cause.

Now, we as customers also get a voice in the matter because we also enter into a voluntary business relationship with WG which either of us is also free to terminate at any time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Archaic_One said:

I think perhaps people need a lesson on what censorship means.  If the state restricts what you as a consenting adult can communicate with other consenting adults - that is censorship.  If an entity that you enter into a business agreement with restricts what you, as their business partner, can say regarding matters of their business - that is called work.

WG did not censor Foch, they terminated a business relationship - which either party can do at any time with or without cause.

Now, we as customers also get a voice in the matter because we also enter into a voluntary business relationship with WG which either of us is also free to terminate at any time.

This does not change that they attempted to file a DMCA charge against him. He did not violate any part of that as far as I understand, but he chose to take the video down anyway. I personally don't care that WG EU removed his CC status, as it is merely a title, but they effectively made him remove his video. WHY? This is the free world, you are allowed to call people assholes all you want, we do it on THIS FORUM. WG is taking shots at people they have no right for, unless they actually can file a DMCA charge. This WAS censorship of opinion, through attempted (and likely unfounded) legal action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... Where is the evidence that WG did any thing more than ask Foch to take it down and take away CC? I see people are already busy with the pitchforks again despite zero evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:

This does not change that they attempted to file a DMCA charge against him. He did not violate any part of that as far as I understand, but he chose to take the video down anyway. I personally don't care that WG EU removed his CC status, as it is merely a title, but they effectively made him remove his video. WHY? This is the free world, you are allowed to call people assholes all you want, we do it on THIS FORUM. WG is taking shots at people they have no right for, unless they actually can file a DMCA charge. This WAS censorship of opinion, through attempted (and likely unfounded) legal action.

Once again, Youtube is not the government, Foch posts content on Youtube and gets paid for it - WG attempting to convince Youtube to issue a Copyright Strike was a bullshit move, but its not censorship.  I'm not arguing that WG is not being shady as fuck, but censorship is what North Korea and Iran do - when we try to hang that tag on some gamers having a quibble over a Youtube video - we diminish the weight of the word censor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Epic said:

So... Where is the evidence that WG did any thing more than ask Foch to take it down and take away CC? I see people are already busy with the pitchforks again despite zero evidence.

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldofTanks/comments/6bvus2/sirfoch_chrysler_k_gf_is_a_joke_and_so_is_wg/dhq0bcp?context=0

This should link to the Reddit comment by Foch on the video someone else posted. I'm on mobile so it's a little rough linking things from one app to the next with links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for evidence, not for gossip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Epic said:

I asked for evidence, not for gossip.

IT'S HIS QUOTE. BY HIM. WITH HIS FLAIR. I'm fairly certain he mentions it on his YouTube channel on his latest video, but I'm not sure. Also, try not to be so disrespectful, I'm trying to provide evidence and you just retorted back with a short quip that was worded rudely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Archaic_One said:

  If an entity that you enter into a business agreement with restricts what you, as their business partner, can say regarding matters of their business - that is called work.

Right so if censorship is part of the agreement to begin with that makes it ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ezz said:

Right so if censorship is part of the agreement to begin with that makes it ok?

Lol, YES - exactly.  If I agree to be a product representative for your company and then I start publicly saying things you don't like about your company then you are allowed to take away my sponsorship and unplug the mic.  Nothing is keeping Foch from making a Youtube video tomorrow ripping WG, but they don't have to pay him to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Archaic_One said:

Once again, Youtube is not the government, Foch posts content on Youtube and gets paid for it - WG attempting to convince Youtube to issue a Copyright Strike was a bullshit move, but its not censorship.  I'm not arguing that WG is not being shady as fuck, but censorship is what North Korea and Iran do - when we try to hang that tag on some gamers having a quibble over a Youtube video - we diminish the weight of the word censor.

You have a rather narrow concept of censorship.  The ability to censor is not limited to a government as we all learned when the tobacco companies were caught censoring scientific studies.  Even on your narrow definition, use of the government or threat of government action to silence opinions you do not like is censorship, e.g. when a private entity threatens a media outlet with violations of the a statute in order to prevent disclosure of whatever it may be. To make it more plain, if a corporation threatens to ruin you financially if you say or write thus or so, it's censorship. When progressives make it so whichever fox news shit can't speak at Berkeley, it's censorship.

tl;dr: the power to censor does not rest only with a government. 

I do agree with you that as world events go, this is a trifle. Still, WG's conduct has shown it in a bad light and was certainly poorly handled. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Archaic_One said:

Lol, YES - exactly.  If I agree to be a product representative for your company and then I start publicly saying things you don't like about your company then you are allowed to take away my sponsorship and unplug the mic.  Nothing is keeping Foch from making a Youtube video tomorrow ripping WG, but they don't have to pay him to do it.

It does bring into question exactly what agreement is made between a CC and WG. My suspicion is that it would be fairly loose with implications throughout. Whether agreed to or not i am not a fan of limiting what people can or can't say. As to whatever punitive actions WG take when someone crosses the either implied line, or actual line, i guess we'll see. Threats involving copyright infringement etc. do seem heavy handed, but i guess there is not a lot of middle ground in such things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just a general trend I've noticed. Blitz, PC WOT are both just fucking disintegrating right now. PC is getting autistic premiums 24/7 and Blitz just got mega fucked by a 'improved' equipment system. I swear WGHQ is so fucking awful at game development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disintegrating strikes me as being slightly overstating the state of affairs for WG. In fact my worry about their new approach is that i suspect all this new premium crap that is being dumped into the game has probably seen their revenue increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if i needed any more reason not to play the game when my premium runs out next week. 

Its almost like WG have acknowledge what they are doing is bad for the game and have no intention in fixing it. So what's the next best thing? Fucking over the critical content creators whenever they speak out against it. This is reminding me of the "What? There are no bots in world of tanks" stance WG had a few years back but much much worse. 

"What? We aren't completely breaking the game by Making Armour Great Again^TM and making your wallet pay for it"

 

SirFoch has always been critical of the armour changes and new premium tanks, now its been ramped up past 11 and onto ludicrous speed with no end in sight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another in a disturbing line of questionable prem tank released.

Relatively well known personality goes max negative (saying what we all think).

Company terminates an agreement with said contributor (and threatens questionable further action they can't really back up).

Contributor caves because ass pain, and perhaps to stay in good graces to some extent.

Company direction further exposed, we all know it's circling the drain.

Trust further eroded by one of the worst video game/developer PR departments in the industry.

So really, business as usual with these people.

Fantastic game driven into the ground through hubris and incompetence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poke the bear, surprised when bear bites back.

Accuse WG of being dirty fucking money grabbing pieces of shits, surprised when WG does exactly what a money grabbing piece of shit does and DMCA strikes you.

 

Srsly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jsgx3 said:

Another in a disturbing line of questionable prem tank released.

Relatively well known personality goes max negative (saying what we all think).

Company terminates an agreement with said contributor (and threatens questionable further action they can't really back up).

Contributor caves because ass pain, and perhaps to stay in good graces to some extent.

Company direction further exposed, we all know it's circling the drain.

Trust further eroded by one of the worst video game/developer PR departments in the industry.

So really, business as usual with these people.

Fantastic game driven into the ground through hubris and incompetence.

The problem is, and i think SirFoch is also of this opinion is that this last patch was alright. 

MM changes. Awesome but needs a tiny bit of tweaking. 

The arty changes although completely stupid at times were good and all they need to do is adjust it in a few respects. Remove damage THROUGH cover and tie in stun with damage. If you get damaged you get stunned. If you don't get damaged, you don't get stunned. 

It completely changed the game for the better honestly. 

The light tanks needed some rebalancing but i could see them work if WG drop their retarded "But LTs cant be competitive against mediums" even though they clearly never will be. 

Stupid high armoured tanks could be fixed by.... nerfing them.... 

 

However they completely fucking ruin it by refusing to do anything about the Maus and releasing an EVEN MORE OP premium tank with NO frontal weakspots unlike the Liberte and the Defender. At least the Defender has a softish LFP and pennable cupolas. It was only a matter of time before SirFoch was going to blow up like this since he detests the armour meta, lack of weakspots and the insistence of bringing trash guns with godlike gold rounds (fuck me, 198mm pen standard???)

4 minutes ago, CarbonWard said:

Poke the bear, surprised when bear bites back.

Accuse WG of being dirty fucking money grabbing pieces of shits, surprised when WG does exactly what a money grabbing piece of shit does and DMCA strikes you.

 

Srsly?

They can DMCA him if they want, it won't actually do anything. Youtube already ruined their monetising for small channels so even if it does go through, he'll lose a free meal a month or so. AKA so what. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.