Has MovieBob been fired from ScrewAttack?

IceForce

Is this memes?
Legacy
Dec 11, 2012
2,384
16
13
Tono Makt said:
Silvanus said:
Tono Makt said:
From the start of GamerGate, Jim and Bob decided to let their personal politics interfere with their work and customer relations [...]
What did Jim do wrong?

The show was always opinionated; it was kind of the basis of it. What edged it into becoming an interference with the work?
It wasn't the show for either Bob or Jim - it was the reactions on Social Media and Twitter in particular.
The main issue I have with this is the fact that you've identified the source of the problems as being on social media and twitter, and NOT in their actual writings and videos.

Don't get me wrong, Bob's behavior on twitter was pretty disgraceful. But, as long as it stayed there and didn't creep into his work, then that doesn't make it unethical. And since it wasn't unethical, then technically it should have been of no interest to Gamergate.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,742
3,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
crimson5pheonix said:
Then what was the purpose of this:

Silvanus said:
MovieBob cannot be mentioned, it seems, without the thread spiralling into a hate session.

A little ironic, given that the most commonly recurring complaint about the guy is that he couldn't keep his distaste for people out of unrelated topics.
or this:

Silvanus said:
the silence said:
Just proof that you reap what you sow.
More to the point, it's indicative that people are unable or unwilling to adopt the standards they hold others to.
or this:

Silvanus said:
Roboshi said:
The main difference there is, Bob is supposed to be a guy who wants to make his business making content on the internet. You act like an insufferable ass on a forum you get a block or a ban or something, but you try doing it at your job.

It's about being a professional and conducting yourself in a professional manner versus just being someone making dickish comments on the internet.
There are different expectations, I suppose. I just would have expected that if people considered it such terrible behaviour, they wouldn't engage in it.
The purpose is contained in each of those quotes. None of them indicate that criticism of the guy is automatically hypocritical; none of them accuse people of engaging in all his worst behaviours.

My purpose has always been that animosity features very heavily in any thread related to the guy, even if he hasn't done anything new. That's all. Don't embellish that by pretending I'm accusing his critics of engaging in all his worst behaviours. That's a fib.

SolidState said:
When he decided his personal friendships were more important to him than calling out unethical behavior or sticking up for consumer rights.
What's the actual chain of events? This is just a highly one-sided description, without any details. It could be anything.

Tono Makt said:
It wasn't the show for either Bob or Jim - it was the reactions on Social Media and Twitter in particular. Bob was (and continues to be) outright horrid, but Jim was handcuffed by the reputation he had spent years cultivating as a firebrand Consumer Advocate and his growing evolution into the SJW movement. GamerGate put those at odds, and Jim was unable to navigate those murky waters - he w/couldn't take on the Media, he w/couldn't take on the Pundits, and he was tepidly against the consumers in ways that seemed like he was doing the least he could do to appease his new allies/friends while not completely alienating his own viewership. That may seem like the best course of action, but this was at the height of the GamerGate conflict and neither side was willing to give Neutrals much of a chance. You were either Pro or Anti, with nothing in between.
It's not really reasonable to condemn Jim for not criticising the media or other pundits. We hold people accountable for what they do, not what they don't do. His primarily role has always been as a critic of the game development industry, not other pundits.

As for being "against consumers", what's that based on? Don't say Gamergate.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,364
2,137
118
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Then what was the purpose of this:

Silvanus said:
MovieBob cannot be mentioned, it seems, without the thread spiralling into a hate session.

A little ironic, given that the most commonly recurring complaint about the guy is that he couldn't keep his distaste for people out of unrelated topics.
or this:

Silvanus said:
the silence said:
Just proof that you reap what you sow.
More to the point, it's indicative that people are unable or unwilling to adopt the standards they hold others to.
or this:

Silvanus said:
Roboshi said:
The main difference there is, Bob is supposed to be a guy who wants to make his business making content on the internet. You act like an insufferable ass on a forum you get a block or a ban or something, but you try doing it at your job.

It's about being a professional and conducting yourself in a professional manner versus just being someone making dickish comments on the internet.
There are different expectations, I suppose. I just would have expected that if people considered it such terrible behaviour, they wouldn't engage in it.
The purpose is contained in each of those quotes. None of them indicate that criticism of the guy is automatically hypocritical; none of them accuse people of engaging in all his worst behaviours.

My purpose has always been that animosity features very heavily in any thread related to the guy, even if he hasn't done anything new. That's all. Don't embellish that by pretending I'm accusing his critics of engaging in all his worst behaviours. That's a fib.
And you've been trying to say that people here shouldn't be criticizing him because then they'd be just like him, which is downplaying how Bob acts. It's apologism. If you don't want to be accused of such, don't misrepresent what people are saying.
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
IceForce said:
Tono Makt said:
Silvanus said:
Tono Makt said:
From the start of GamerGate, Jim and Bob decided to let their personal politics interfere with their work and customer relations [...]
What did Jim do wrong?

The show was always opinionated; it was kind of the basis of it. What edged it into becoming an interference with the work?
It wasn't the show for either Bob or Jim - it was the reactions on Social Media and Twitter in particular.
The main issue I have with this is the fact that you've identified the source of the problems as being on social media and twitter, and NOT in their actual writings and videos.

Don't get me wrong, Bob's behavior on twitter was pretty disgraceful. But, as long as it stayed there and didn't creep into his work, then that doesn't make it unethical. And since it wasn't unethical, then technically it should have been of no interest to Gamergate.
Their actions on Twitter (Bob in particular) are part of their Brand. Their Brands were associated with the Escapists' Brand. There can only be a limited degree of Brand separation at the best of times, and that degree gets even smaller when the Brands are using their literal names - "MovieBOB and the JIMquisition". When one part of the Brand is acting disgracefully (as in the case of Bob), it necessarily has a knock-on effect to the rest of the Brand.

This knock-on effect would have been less if Bob was using just his legal name - Bob Chipman - on the site, and his MovieBob was his freelance/personal/YouTube Channel/Twitter handle/etc. name. (sort of like me and Tono Makt) Or if he was using an entirely different identity for this (like seems to be somewhat the case with his Game Overthinker stuff, but I could be quite wrong about that - I have loathed his Game Overthinker stuff since I first found it when the Big Picture came out in what, 2009? - so the only time I look at the GO stuff is when someone has posted it with a caption like "Get what this IDIOT is saying now!") which was divested from his MovieBob identity. But as they were literally the same Identity, what he did in one will have legitimate effects to the other.

When one aspect of the Brand is affected, the entire Brand is affected. Sometimes this is good - everything Bob did was helped by the popularity of MovieBob and later the Big Picture. They got views, they got support, they got traffic because of the Escape to the Movies stuff, which is good - I personally liked the Big Picture far more than his Escape to the Movies, and I probably wouldn't have looked at them if I hadn't enjoyed his Escape to the Movies. At the same time, when he screws up as badly as he did on Twitter under the MovieBob name, that affects the rest of the brand as much, if not moreso, than the good stuff from before.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,742
3,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
crimson5pheonix said:
And you've been trying to say that people here shouldn't be criticizing him because then they'd be just like him, which is downplaying how Bob acts. It's apologism. If you don't want to be accused of such, don't misrepresent what people are saying.
Stop putting words in my mouth, for gods' sake. No, they would not be "just like him"; I'm saying they're doing something that he is frequently accused of doing-- dragging personal animosities into unrelated topics.

That is not the same as accusing of them of being "just like him". That is not the same as accusing them of engaging in the worst of what he does. Tiresome fabrication.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,364
2,137
118
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
And you've been trying to say that people here shouldn't be criticizing him because then they'd be just like him, which is downplaying how Bob acts. It's apologism. If you don't want to be accused of such, don't misrepresent what people are saying.
Stop putting words in my mouth, for gods' sake. No, they would not be "just like him"; I'm saying they're doing something that he is frequently accused of doing-- dragging personal animosities into unrelated topics.

That is not the same as accusing of them of being "just like him". That is not the same as accusing them of engaging in the worst of what he does.
Alright then, who in this thread is so hypocritical? Who shouldn't be criticizing Bob? Can you name the subject of your post?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,742
3,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
crimson5pheonix said:
Alright then, who in this thread is so hypocritical? Who shouldn't be criticizing Bob? Can you name the subject of your post?
Yet again, I never said people shouldn't be criticising Bob. That is something you made up.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,364
2,137
118
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Alright then, who in this thread is so hypocritical? Who shouldn't be criticizing Bob? Can you name the subject of your post?
Yet again, I never said people shouldn't be criticising Bob. That is something you made up.
Silvanus said:
the silence said:
Just proof that you reap what you sow.
More to the point, it's indicative that people are unable or unwilling to adopt the standards they hold others to.
Who is the subject of your posts? Why are you posting like this?
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
Well, I might as well join the dogpile.

There are times when I find myself liking something, but disliking its creator. In spite of this, I am often able to separate the person from the product. MovieBob is not one of these instances. His personal beliefs are often the subject of his videos, making it impossible to separate the man from his work. His social media comments read like a fanatical zealot, and the few excerpts I've read from his book gave me the impression that he has genuine mental health issues that aren't being properly addressed. I actually kind of feel bad for him...until I remind myself just how toxic he can be.

Something Amyss said:
Well, as long as you consider people who now take shots at "SJWs" and liberals and progressives and so-called "cultural marxists" neutral. That sounds more like "they fired the people I disagree with and hired people who agree with me." Which is basically what happened. And that's fine, it's not my site. The only downside is the hit the community took from it as people were either harassed away or just got sick of it. But this whole "neutral/apolitical" thing isn't even remotely true.
"Harassed away?" I admittedly didn't follow GG all that closely, but I don't remember harassment playing a major role for the exodus. It seemed to be more of an example of "taking my ball and leaving."
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Neverhoodian said:
"Harassed away?" I admittedly didn't follow GG all that closely, but I don't remember harassment playing a major role for the exodus. It seemed to be more of an example of "taking my ball and leaving."
NotTheBees ended up fighting to get her account removed. It's my understanding that other people did, too, but I'm personally familiar with that user. I received death threats and threats to dox/out me (the latter part of that being a potential death sentence, and having been the victim of hate crimes before, I have a pretty good reason to fear such shit). Other people were swarmed and accused of things like supporting child porn (this was one of the things NTBs dealt with, as well). I'm not sure what your definition of harassment is, so maybe leaving the site because people are doing these things counts as taking your ball and going home. I mean, technically, I didn't get my way when I contacted the then-CM about such issues. Part of the reason I changed my account name was specifically because I couldn't get my account deleted, I have had my profile and personal details archived, and this was literally the best way to de-link my alter ego from at least casual scrutiny. I mean, there's another obvious element to it, but that's not really on the current topic.

Thing is, even bringing this up is almost guaranteed to generate sealioning from folks who will demand I personally prove to them that I was threatened and the like. You may not consider that harassment either, I don't know. But I do, and I've had it happen before. And given that I have no real interest in derailing and limited interest in the topic of MovieBob, I'm just going to go ahead and bow out of the topic now. But you asked, so I answered.
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
Something Amyss said:
Fair enough. Sorry to hear you had to put up with all that. People can do thoughtless/asinine things when their blood is up.

Like I said, I didn't follow the GG megathread or similar topics all that closely; it was too hard to keep up with anyway.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,742
3,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
crimson5pheonix said:
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Alright then, who in this thread is so hypocritical? Who shouldn't be criticizing Bob? Can you name the subject of your post?
Yet again, I never said people shouldn't be criticising Bob. That is something you made up.
Silvanus said:
the silence said:
Just proof that you reap what you sow.
More to the point, it's indicative that people are unable or unwilling to adopt the standards they hold others to.
Who is the subject of your posts? Why are you posting like this?
Do you really see those two quotes as contradicting one another? That is not saying people shouldn't be criticising him.

I was referring to posts like these; 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack#23527539], 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23527960], 3 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23528198]. Ones which take pot-shots about mental health issues, social skills, or the familiar (political) "SJW" jibe. It's reached such a fever pitch, it feels like the Two-Minutes Hate in here.

And I'm criticised for "apologism" for the above, though I haven't said three words in the guy's defence? Just not being loud enough in condemnation is a fucking issue, now. Bollocks to that.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,364
2,137
118
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Alright then, who in this thread is so hypocritical? Who shouldn't be criticizing Bob? Can you name the subject of your post?
Yet again, I never said people shouldn't be criticising Bob. That is something you made up.
Silvanus said:
the silence said:
Just proof that you reap what you sow.
More to the point, it's indicative that people are unable or unwilling to adopt the standards they hold others to.
Who is the subject of your posts? Why are you posting like this?
Do you really see those two quotes as contradicting one another? That is not saying people shouldn't be criticising him.

I was referring to posts like these; 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack#23527539], 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23527960], 3 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23528198]. Ones which take pot-shots about mental health issues, social skills, or the familiar (political) "SJW" jibe. It's reached such a fever pitch, it feels like the Two-Minutes Hate in here.
Then quote them instead of passive aggressively pointing to everyone in the thread. Because I should point out that of those, only the first actually falls under what you're criticizing. The other two are pointing out his venomous personality. That's actually a pretty common theme.

The people who are criticizing him for putting his politics into everything are pretty much just saying it lowers the quality of his videos. The people saying fuck Bob might not like that either, but they're referencing the fact that he's kind of a bad person. You posted maybe, MAYBE, one example of someone who genuinely dislikes Bob because he injects his political opinions everywhere.

You're conflating the two groups to try and call the people criticizing him hypocrites (which they aren't) in a passive-aggressive way. So answer my other question, why are you posting like this? Is it because you don't want people criticizing Bob? Do you just want to feel superior?

And I'm criticised for "apologism" for the above, though I haven't said three words in the guy's defence? Just not being loud enough in condemnation is a fucking issue, now. Bollocks to that.
No, I'm accusing you of apologism because you're trying to stop people from criticizing Bob.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,742
3,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
dirtysteve said:
Which is one of the reasons people don't like Bob, he uses the exacts same 'with us or against us' tactic. I don't think you need to condemn anyone to prove a point, but I do find that it is required more from the SJW side than anyone else.
Unrelated political insults.

crimson5pheonix said:
Then quote them instead of passive aggressively pointing to everyone in the thread. Because I should point out that of those, only the first actually falls under what you're criticizing. The other two are pointing out his venomous personality. That's actually a pretty common theme.
What I was criticising was personal animosity bleeding into every thread he's mentioned in, regardless of relevance, or whether he's done anything new. They fit the bill.

crimson5pheonix said:
So answer my other question, why are you posting like this? Is it because you don't want people criticizing Bob? Do you just want to feel superior?
Aaand we're done here. If it's always going to default to this mindless notion that I just don't want any criticism at all, there's no point in continuing.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
35,364
2,137
118
Silvanus said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Then quote them instead of passive aggressively pointing to everyone in the thread. Because I should point out that of those, only the first actually falls under what you're criticizing. The other two are pointing out his venomous personality. That's actually a pretty common theme.
What I was criticising was personal animosity bleeding into every thread he's mentioned in, regardless of relevance, or whether he's done anything new. They fit the bill.
Possibly because he's done a lot of work to insult a lot of people. If you set yourself up as a toxic person, you'll get a lot of toxic responses. What's your issue? That they have a different opinion of Bob from you? Why are you calling them hypocrites if they express their opinion?

crimson5pheonix said:
So answer my other question, why are you posting like this? Is it because you don't want people criticizing Bob? Do you just want to feel superior?
Aaand we're done here. If it's always going to default to this mindless notion that I just don't want any criticism at all, there's no point in continuing.
You haven't yet given a purpose to your posts. I'm defaulting to that because assuming you want to feel smug is demeaning and I can't see any other contribution to the thread from your posts. You won't give any sort of answer either.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
7,742
3,259
118
Country
United Kingdom
Richard Gozin-Yu said:
I don't know about apologism, but you seem to be trying to deflect attention and criticism from a really disgusting person. Now you're acting hurt and offended when people are insisting that what they're doing is not equivalent to what he does. You seem unable to refute that, and are getting more upset.

Why is that I wonder?
If you cannot see the difference between criticising a critic and defending their target, then there's nothing else I can say. They're simply not the same thing.

As for acting "hurt and offended", I've given no greater indication of that than those I've been arguing with. It's just a classic tactic to claim hysteria on behalf of the opposition.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Silvanus said:
I was referring to posts like these; 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack#23527539], 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23527960], 3 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23528198]. Ones which take pot-shots about mental health issues, social skills, or the familiar (political) "SJW" jibe. It's reached such a fever pitch, it feels like the Two-Minutes Hate in here.
Don't know what you're bickering about with everyone else, but I'd just like to point out that there was no hate in the post of mine that you've referenced. I simply pointed out Bob's style of review involves a lot of politicizing, and as was implied by my original post: that's not the kind of thing I like in my reviews. Talk about why the game/movie is good or bad, I don't need a sermon on how the game or movie symbolizes the decay of western society.

To be clear: I wouldn't care if he was a gun-toting right-wing conspiracy any more than I care if he's a raving communist...I just don't like having politics mixed up in reviews for games and/or movies. I dislike the way he plies his trade, I've no reason to dislike him as a person because quite frankly I really don't care about any random talking head on the internet enough to hold a grudge.
 

Redryhno

New member
Jul 25, 2011
3,077
0
0
RJ 17 said:
Silvanus said:
I was referring to posts like these; 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack#23527539], 2 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23527960], 3 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.934808-Has-MovieBob-been-fired-from-ScrewAttack?page=2#23528198]. Ones which take pot-shots about mental health issues, social skills, or the familiar (political) "SJW" jibe. It's reached such a fever pitch, it feels like the Two-Minutes Hate in here.
Don't know what you're bickering about with everyone else, but I'd just like to point out that there was no hate in the post of mine that you've referenced. I simply pointed out Bob's style of review involves a lot of politicizing, and as was implied by my original post: that's not the kind of thing I like in my reviews. Talk about why the game/movie is good or bad, I don't need a sermon on how the game or movie symbolizes the decay of western society.

To be clear: I wouldn't care if he was a gun-toting right-wing conspiracy any more than I care if he's a raving communist...I just don't like having politics mixed up in reviews for games and/or movies. I dislike the way he plies his trade, I've no reason to dislike him as a person because quite frankly I really don't care about any random talking head on the internet enough to hold a grudge.
To be fair, there's some games where explaining the politics of it can make it more understandable or make the reviewers views on it more nuanced. But I will agree Bob injected it where it wasn't needed far too often. Especially his Picture Pig stuff had too much in it even for a show that largely was just him blabbering about.