Poll: Jim sterling VS Extra credits

[AdmiralMemo]

I donated to that under the assumption that EC would stay on the Escapist.

Well, I believe most did. However, when the Escapist tried to screw EC out of either half the donations or the money they owed EC from the episodes they produced, they started a fight that had no good end.

 

[funcooker11811]

Oh god, just snip all of that

I do love the default of "people of differing opinions agree with each other, therefore, one must be an alt". Very classy. In any case, you completely failed to address the point of "free speech" having the ability to cause injury, as well as waste resources, depending on what was said, and you ignored it because you cannot form a rebuttal that doesn't either A: make you sound like a nut job, or B: Undermine your binary position of all or nothing. (Please note the point I'm referring to is the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" and "calling in a fake bomb threat", as I do agree that Zachary went off into a expression tangent).

As to victims in the workplace, you completely missed the point I was making, in that those conditions have damaging effects on people, and its completely unfair that other people would have to suffer because somebody feels like taking things too far. But, even if we do go with your view that victims should just attack the attackers, how in the hell does that solve anything? While the whole "bullies just need to be stood up to" thing might work in 80's movies, it doesn't work in real life the vast majority of the time. In fact, more often than not, showing up a bully just encourages them to step up their game, making the situation far worse, as well as turning the victim into the very thing they would be fighting. Our reaction to situations like this shouldn't be "fight fire with fire", it should be "why on earth is this a problem to begin with"!

We don't put harassment laws into place because we pity the victims, we do it because when the average person hears misogynistic, racist, or homophobic statements, their reaction is that they don't like it, they don't want to be associated with it, and they don't want it around them. Again, this ties into the group mentality line of thinking, where we see someone being isolated for no good reason, which allows sympathy and empathy so step in, and tell us "this is wrong, and this should not be the way things are". Its not that we feel that their defenseless, its that we simply reject the idea that such things should take place.

Am I advocating censorship, or even total political correctness? Absolutely not! I've told racist jokes before, and I've laughed at them. But when it comes to the point that it actually negatively impacts someone's life, I very quickly and firmly draw the line, and that's why that things such as freedom of speech AREN'T a black and white issue. The main thing, arguably the ONLY thing, that one should consider when determining whether or not something should be protected is intent. Is this person just making a joke, or is this person actively trying to hurt the other? It's because of things like this that we have those exemptions to the supposedly iron-clad free speech rule, and I would make the argument that such exemptions are not only beneficial, but necessary to a functioning, civil society. There's a difference between freedom of speech, and anarchy.

 

[FalloutJack]

Both, sort of.

You see, I'm a fan of the EC crew, myself, and they're both entertaining and good to listen to. I learn a few things, I take an interest, I feel less cynical. It happens. Jim, I've watched some episodes of that are relevant to my interests. Not everything he says I even care about. You put him on the soapbox about SOPA and the like, and I start to take an interest.

When it counts, where it counts, both of them should be quoted verbatim as business practice by industries instead of whatever the hell they're doing.

 

[deserteagleeye]

I enjoy both series to a certain extent and I watch them frequently. I disagree with both of them on some topics but I'm not going to flat-out say that they are shit. Everyone has their own stance on something and I find both of theirs to have some merit to them. I learn a lot from them and compare their arguments instead of blindly following one. That's why I enjoy receiving different inputs from many people within the game community. When it comes down to how they present their argument, I would side with EC mainly for the visual representation of certain areas,(because I sometimes derp at terms I'm too lazy to look up.)and because Jim's shtick kind of makes me cringe.

 

[Num1d1um]

Oh god, just snip all of that

I can do the snipping too.

I like how you're already calling me a nutjob before I even made the statement you think I'm gonna make. And also, you have to admit that the person I'm arguing with, congratulating another user on their first post because it agrees, raises suspicion. But alts is not the topic.

You asked why on earth bullies are a problem to begin with. Whatever the answer is, I'm sure it's not likely to be "We allowed them to call people names". Guess what's gonna happen when you actually outlaw verbal bullying among children. You think it's gonna stop? Of course not. It'll get worse. Because now you've given the bully another incentive to talk shit. We all know kids do stuff they're not supposed to to be cool, to rebel, or simply because there's that little thing in our minds that makes something we're imminently forbidden to do desirable. Kinda like how you think about the pink elephant when I tell you not to do it. It's the same mechanic that makes abstinence such a stupid thing. Bullying is not something you can solve. Neither is war, by the way, or any kind of conflict. You can dampen it, and, through a legal system, you can punish conflict creators and provide exemplary deterrent to make the rest of the population less likely to create conflict, but it's still gonna happen. Making it illegal will not fix bullying.

You're saying that standing up to bullies is fighting fire with fire, but you don't provide any other method of fighting fire. Tell me, what is the water of that analogy? I assume fire is verbal assault. So water would be.... physical violence? Doubt it, judging from your post. Authority intervention? Doesn't work, everyone knows this. Preventative methods? Apparently, but I explained in the paragraph above why outlawing bullying won't stop it. And you can blatantly see this. If verbal assault is already a crime, which it is, why are we even having this conversation? Because verbal assault still happens. Shows how effective that law is. And yes, widening freedom of speech is not gonna help the victim. So what. The assailant deserves his right as much as the victim does, as it is with any other human right. I won't start talking about article 3, but it's pretty much the same issue.

And lastly, when you step into the territory of defining the gray borders of a gray version of freedom of speech, who is gonna define them, and how? We know that different things are offensive or hurtful to different people. As you said, I could make a joke about gays and some might consider it verbal assault on their person while others will laugh. They could say I was actively trying to hurt them, I could say that I wasn't, how do you determine who's right? Are you gonna make verbal conflict laws case-laws? You say you draw the line where it negatively impacts others, well, that's not one line, and it's not very straight either. So are you gonna have some wonky imaginary boundary that doesn't apply to a lot of people and will undoubtedly create conflict in the very situation supposed to solve an issue, or are you gonna accept that some people may be offended, but have a proper, absolute freedom for citizens?

A person's right to be offended is also part of free speech. Some people may feel assaulted by words, too fucking bad for em. Conflict is part of life. Considering concurrent civilized societies, verbal conflict is probably the most petty of them. People all around the world are fucking dying every single day, and here in first-world countries we have people trying to suppress the foundation of modern civilized nations because someone said something mean to them.

One last thing, this has nothing to do with anarchy. Quite the opposite. It has to do with consistency and avoiding hypocrisy on the side of the state. And yeah, censorship is exactly what you're advocating. Forbidding someone from saying stuff because others might feel threatened or offended. This is exactly what censorship is. Always under the pretense of protection or security. Whether or not a piece of talk negatively impacts someone's life somewhere is entirely dependant on the supposed "victim"'s subjective perception of the speech or talk delivered. The speaker's intent becomes irrelevant at this point, because the listener may very likely misinterpret it, or simply make a wrong assumption, because his perception of the said statement is subjective. You don't base laws on subjective experiences of individuals. So treating every spoken or written piece of speech as an inherently neutral document and leaving the subjective effect up to the listener/reader is a way more reasonable and a way more effective way of looking at speech under the law than to have individuals dictate vague guidelines based on their personal feelings.

 

[Krion_Vark]

Theres a fucking mute button for a reason. Just because people elect not to use it... ah fuck who cares.

Excuses excuses. A mute button doesn't make the problems go away. It just enables bad behavior.

"Yeah, I know my neighbor regularly beats his wife, but if I close the blinds, then I don't have to see it!"

That's a bad analogy, do you want a better one?

"My Grandad likes shouting racist slurs. So we put him in a room where no one could hear him."

I can't find the video right now but there was an experiment done where a guy one night played a recording of drums really loud then a week later played a recording of a woman getting beat really loud. People came for the drums but not for the woman. So yeah his analogy actually works.


PS: If anyone could find that video I would be grateful because its a really good thing to watch.

WHAT? How does that make the analogy work?

There is no comparison between someone shouting profanities down a mic and someone beating a woman.

That's like saying 'They came for the Jews continue quote' when someone get's arrested for paedophilia.

There has to be a level of comparability for an analogy to work, and there is NO comparison between someone being rude on a mic and someone beating their wife, just like there's no comparison between someone being persecuted for being Jewish and someone being arrested for molesting children. Regardless of whether or not people have the balls to call the police for domestic violence cases.

I jus.... I don't even. How can you look at that analogy and not cry from the sheer amount of 'does not work'.

It makes it work because if someone is just screaming obcenities into the mic EVERYONE tells them to shut up. Soon as they send it at a woman however no one tells them to shut up and pretty much go the way of NOTHING TO DO HERE and just ignores it.

What the fuck are you saying? No, what the actual fuck are-you-saying?

We're talking about people being dicks down a mic. THAT ISN'T COMPARABLE TO SOMEONE BEATING THEIR WIFE! The analogy is bad.

We arent comparing the action with it we are COMPARING THE REACTION. So the analogy works.

 

[coldfrog]

I think the reason why Jim Sterling is so popular is that he says things that people already want to hear. It's mass market entertainment. While there is nothing particularly WRONG with that, I don't know that it necessarily lends anything to looking at how to improve the industry. The problem with something being popular is that it doesn't equate to being good.

Yes! This is my thought exactly!

When I watch Jim, I feel his show does little more than to deliver a one-line statement in an envelope of jokes. When you've stripped away the packaging, all that's left is that one line, with no elaboration or examination of the message itself. Whether I agree with it or not, I get little feeling as to WHY I should agree or disagree. Even when I disagree with Extra Credits, I can at least feel like they've put forth a cogent argument as to why they think that way, as opposed to grabbing at any hot-button issue and pounding it home with exclamations and vulgarity.

And for the record, I'm not against vulgarity and exclaiming things, but my problem is, I don't find Jim entertaining, and so I don't care for him, even if he says something I agree with. On the other hand, I don't have to look to Extra Credits for entertainment or even for agreeing with, as I find I usually learn something from their discussions.

Also, I feel comparing the two is unfair, as they have very different aims in their videos.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I don't find Extra Credits pretentious at all. People say that because they are preachy as all hell, and it does get grating. But preachy does not necessarily mean pretentious.

I never 'got' Jim Sterling. Most of his early videos on the Escapist were just trolling with no actual content worth mentioning. I was actually kind of shocked to see something like that on this website. His voice is extremely hard to listen to, almost as if he's trying to be annoying. The way he draws out his vowels all week long makes me wonder if it's affected in a misguided attempt to sound journalistic and authoritative. The alternative is he actually talks that way when he's, say, ordering a sandwich, and that must be damned inconvenient. Just imagine him saying "I would like some maayoonaaaaaaise" while everyone just stares. Beside that, his attempts at humor are just offensively bad. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don't, but his opinions always seem half-baked. He doesn't seem to know any more about most topics than the average forum goer. He sometimes even reverses himself because he didn't bother to research a topic before weighing in on it.

So he's annoying, unfunny in a painful way, and doesn't bring much to the discussion. Sorry to be harsh but that's how I see it.

 

[370999]

I like them both.

Jim is what Moviebob should be, funny and insightful while ridiculous and over the top. Cheesy and good fun and occasionally, just occasionally you might gain a new insight.

Extra Credits does a good job of examining a particular issue and offering a solution. I really love how they try to avoid sensationalism or overt bias. I get the feeling they actually want to promote understanding of an issue rather then make a video which is intended to brow beat people to their side. They are what MovieBob thinks he is but isn't.

 

[G-Force]

The EC crew is just pretentious. Jim does that "exagerated god-complex" thingy to create a fake persona, to make us laugh a little so we can view the point he is trying to make. Extra Credits are just pretentious.

Too preachy and never even admitting it. At least sometimes Jim does say that he either won't talk much about something because he is biased, or when he does, he says that he respects the people who disagree with him. Extra Credits never does this.

I liked EC once. I hated Jim before. Now he improved his show and trought His example he made me see what EC really were: pretentious douches trying to cover it up with false niceness and condescense. Thank God for Jim (hehehehe).

Define pretentious and how EC is an example of this. I see a series of videos done in an academic style that are well spoken, well researched and very structured and completely lacking in personal insults, swearing and slurs. EC takes its points and presents them in the style of a thesis or a lecture complete with bullet points and sources cited. How is presenting information in a respectful, academic style pretentious? If anything it shows a very positive portrayal of gamers.

 

[mjc0961]

Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

 

[370999]

The EC crew is just pretentious. Jim does that "exagerated god-complex" thingy to create a fake persona, to make us laugh a little so we can view the point he is trying to make. Extra Credits are just pretentious.

Too preachy and never even admitting it. At least sometimes Jim does say that he either won't talk much about something because he is biased, or when he does, he says that he respects the people who disagree with him. Extra Credits never does this.

I liked EC once. I hated Jim before. Now he improved his show and trought His example he made me see what EC really were: pretentious douches trying to cover it up with false niceness and condescense. Thank God for Jim (hehehehe).

Define pretentious and how EC is an example of this. I see a series of videos done in an academic style that are well spoken, well researched and very structured and completely lacking in personal insults, swearing and slurs. EC takes its points and presents them in the style of a thesis or a lecture complete with bullet points and sources cited. How is presenting information in a respectful, academic style pretentious? If anything it shows a very positive portrayal of gamers.

If I may say so, I think some of the smarter arguments for their pretensions is not in their side but rather that what they are attempting to do is something that they are not capable of, that are under a delusion of their ability to analyses certain issues when they aren't able to.

Not an argument I believe but there is some merit.

 

[squid5580]

The industry should pay attention to the customers they are losing.
I am going to side with EC on this one and say that we are a community, and we are a moderated community. With as much sexual harassment that goes on unpunished Microsoft could honestly be sued. They could be sued for not only allowing the behavior, but due to the lack of punishment actually encouraging said behavior.
The XBLA community is a paid service, and you do not pay to be harassed, so they either need to start cracking down on it, or they need to start providing tools to deal with it. Just hoping it stops is NOT an option at 15 dollars a month, and we see all too often what happens when bullying goes too far.

This is a real issue, and we need to start making progress in these respects. If I were walking down the road one day and a dude was telling a woman to be productive and go suck some dude's cock I would deck him. Through the internet that's not an option, so there need to be options, and guess how often reporting works.

The tools are already provided. You have a mute function. A block communication function. And an avoid player function. Not to mention a report function. What more do you want? A punch player in the dick function? If you are old enough to use the service you should be mature enough to use these tools without mommy MS intervening.

 

[airrazor7]

Who should the industry pay attention to? Both!
Extra Credits and Jim Sterling can't even be compared to each other.

Jim pretty much discusses the mood of the industry by giving his two cents about any event and the reactions to said event of the professionals and consumers alike. Every now and then he does get technical about the business aspects of the industry but for the most part he's a journalist who specializes in selling his educated opinion.

Extra Credits will talk about events and recent activities of certain businesses from time to time but most of the time they are discussing the process of game creation and development.

 

[Baldr]

You may disagree or agree with this episode, but it does do a good job of explaining both sides of the issue:
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s13e12-the-f-word

 

[linwolf]

The EC crew is just pretentious. Jim does that "exagerated god-complex" thingy to create a fake persona, to make us laugh a little so we can view the point he is trying to make. Extra Credits are just pretentious.

Too preachy and never even admitting it. At least sometimes Jim does say that he either won't talk much about something because he is biased, or when he does, he says that he respects the people who disagree with him. Extra Credits never does this.

I liked EC once. I hated Jim before. Now he improved his show and trought His example he made me see what EC really were: pretentious douches trying to cover it up with false niceness and condescense. Thank God for Jim (hehehehe).

Define pretentious and how EC is an example of this. I see a series of videos done in an academic style that are well spoken, well researched and very structured and completely lacking in personal insults, swearing and slurs. EC takes its points and presents them in the style of a thesis or a lecture complete with bullet points and sources cited. How is presenting information in a respectful, academic style pretentious? If anything it shows a very positive portrayal of gamers.

Being pretentious is making usually unjustified or excessive claims, and EC do this all the time. They make a lot of unsupported claims and makes way to may mistakes for a show build on enlighten people. From simple stuff, see calling GoW a FPS. Things that misleading, see comparing the start of Skyrim with the start of CoD without telling it is not the start of CoD they are showing. To just stating there opinion as facts and build conclusions there are invalid because of it, see their JRPG episode for example of this.
A show especially one the will inform have to make way clear when they are using opinions and making speculations and EC are more than bad at this, they hide them as facts.
I have no problem with a person consider themselves more inform than others, but they have earn that right by being better, making few mistakes and not spreading misinformation.

 

[Elamdri]

I think the reason why Jim Sterling is so popular is that he says things that people already want to hear. It's mass market entertainment. While there is nothing particularly WRONG with that, I don't know that it necessarily lends anything to looking at how to improve the industry. The problem with something being popular is that it doesn't equate to being good.

Yes! This is my thought exactly!

When I watch Jim, I feel his show does little more than to deliver a one-line statement in an envelope of jokes. When you've stripped away the packaging, all that's left is that one line, with no elaboration or examination of the message itself. Whether I agree with it or not, I get little feeling as to WHY I should agree or disagree. Even when I disagree with Extra Credits, I can at least feel like they've put forth a cogent argument as to why they think that way, as opposed to grabbing at any hot-button issue and pounding it home with exclamations and vulgarity.

And for the record, I'm not against vulgarity and exclaiming things, but my problem is, I don't find Jim entertaining, and so I don't care for him, even if he says something I agree with. On the other hand, I don't have to look to Extra Credits for entertainment or even for agreeing with, as I find I usually learn something from their discussions.

Also, I feel comparing the two is unfair, as they have very different aims in their videos.

In all Fairness, the Original post wasn't about which show was BETTER (in which case comparing two different shows is pointless) but rather which show should the industry pay attention to (In which case comparing two different shows matters because one might be more relevant).

 

[Elamdri]

Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

Since when wasn't GoW an FPS? Did they suddenly add a bunch of overly angsty characters with ridiculous hair and a leveling system? Or did they make it so now you drive around all the time and race other CoGs around a track for money? Or maybe it's now a game where you create a CoG base and build CoG soliders and send them to fight the Locust.

 

[Baldr]

Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

It common in the industry to lump fps, tps, sbs, and any other shooter type mechanic in the shooter or fps category.

 

[370999]

Today I turned coats and ventured into PA to wach the weekly Extra credits, and there I realised something. That Jim sterling Knows more about the online gaming scene than the three of them combined.

They think Gears of War is a first person shooter, so the only thing I can say to this is "no fucking shit."

I pity anyone who watches Extra Credits and thinks that the people who make it actually have any idea what they're talking about. Not being able to tell the difference between first and third person not only shows a complete lack of ignorance regarding games, but a complete lack of ignorance in general. First and third person viewpoints aren't just a gaming thing, and not being able to tell the difference show that they're just stupid in general.

Since when wasn't GoW an FPS? Did they suddenly add a bunch of overly angsty characters with ridiculous hair and a leveling system? Or did they make it so now you drive around all the time and race other CoGs around a track for money? Or maybe it's now a game where you create a CoG base and build CoG soliders and send them to fight the Locust.

First person means the use of "I" in literature. In gaming it means that you see things from the characters eyes as in the camera shows what they would be seeing. Mirror's edge/skyrim are first person games.

third person "he/she/it" is when you can see the character on the screen. The camera usually is hovering over their shoulder. Mario and Mass Effect are thrid person.

Gears is a third person shooter in that we always have the camera hover over the protagonist.