Rude Warfame Partners

[o.0-]

Hmm, I'd rather be on my account playing than be watching others play. And I have watched some youtube content on Warframe.

However, I choose to avoid watching most of the Warframe content on youtube, due some of the content that I have come across in the past.

 

The bottom line is, the devs need to keep track of the brand they want promoted for their game, and act accordingly, to sustain the image they want to uphold.

[Shiniko]

What I dislike most about the hate being thrown around between parts of the Warframe community is the liberal use of the phrase 'mob mentality', as if it applies to any group that collectively disagrees with a certain opinion. This phrase directly implies that those labeled under this phrase are reason-less sheep, which invalidates any argument being made. it's a cop-out retort that essentially says "This group is sub-intelligent and doesn't think for themselves, and therefore nothing they say matters." It's an ad hominem, and isn't an argument that supports the person saying the phrase.

Stating arguments about a certain issue should involve reasoning centered around the issue in debate, not around the opposing party to whatever you're discussing.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Shiniko
corrected statement thanks to DatDarkOne, good point.

[DatDarkOne]

7 minutes ago, Shiniko said:

it's a cop-out retort that essentially says "This group is sub-intelligent and non-thinking, and therefore nothing they say matters."

No, it's a phrase that means following the lead of another and not thinking for themselves as an individual.  It's doesn't mean those involved are not intelligent at all.  Depending on the context and/or situation can be quite valid.  

Edited September 20, 2017 by DatDarkOne
grammar

[Shiniko]

13 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:

No, it's a phrase that means following the lead of another and not thinking for themselves as an individual.  It's doesn't mean those involved are not intelligent at all.  Depending on the context and/or situation can be quite valid.  

Yea, I had meant to say that it's how the statement seems to be used nowadays, thanks for pointing that out. My mis-statement.

[(PSN)thefallenloser]

Who are you talking about? It's the Internet. Spill it.

[Spartan336]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)ArtPrince17 said:

Who are you talking about? It's the Internet. Spill it.

This is the Warframe forums. We don't shame people. 

[(PSN)thefallenloser]

2 minutes ago, Spartan336 said:

This is the Warframe forums. We don't shame people. 

Ugh...

[PsychedelicSnake]

21 hours ago, [DE]Aidan said:

-snip-

Thanks Aidan. 

This being said, I'm of the opinion that people should be held accountable for their actions. Warframe Partners, whether intended or not, are public figures and spokespersons for Warframe. If they act poorly toward their viewership or are just jerks in general, this not only reflects poorly on Warframe but also Digital Extremes. While I can sympathize with not wanting to get too hands on with the program, there are limits. A Partner shouldn't call their viewership's opinions trash, insult them on a personal level, or hid behind labels when called out on their poor behavior.

[Jackviator]

30 minutes ago, PsychedelicSnake said:

A Partner shouldn't call their viewership's opinions trash, insult them on a personal level, or hid behind labels when called out on their poor behavior.

Well said. 

[(XBOX)BluAina]

Just curious what is the line that one must cross, in order to have this view from the community? 

[OniDax]

1 hour ago, PsychedelicSnake said:

Thanks Aidan. 

This being said, I'm of the opinion that people should be held accountable for their actions. Warframe Partners, whether intended or not, are public figures and spokespersons for Warframe. If they act poorly toward their viewership or are just jerks in general, this not only reflects poorly on Warframe but also Digital Extremes. While I can sympathize with not wanting to get too hands on with the program, there are limits. A Partner shouldn't call their viewership's opinions trash, insult them on a personal level, or hid behind labels when called out on their poor behavior.

That's exactly my view on this matter. And I think the person to whom we're talking about does those things, and I think that person's defenders use things like their personal labels to justify that individual's behavior.

[Helch0rn]

27 minutes ago, (Xbox One)VTG xSTEVIEx said:

Just curious what is the line that one must cross, in order to have this view from the community? 

can't speak for others but for me it's when someone wishes harm to be done to other people for stupid reasons like their political views.

 

[Tesseract7777]

I've thought this over carefully, after steering clear of the thread for a night. I want to say my peace on one thing, I might not respond to comments, not out of disrespect, but in order to moderate my own behavior. 

If you think a particular Youtuber has done something that goes beyond the normal line of bounds, there are official people to report it to, one who has even read this thread and replied to it already. I in no way endorse using someone's sexual preferences as a shield for bad behavior, but that is not what myself or others are doing. 

My only intention was to point out that some people appear to be unnecessarily bringing his sexual preferences into the mix. Whether he is homoesexual or not, and whether his outward homosexuality bothers you or not, should not have any bearing whatsoever on whether he did something wrong in a video. It should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Because it is not wrong to be homosexual or outwardly homosexual. If he did something wrong, there is no need to even make that a part of the conversation. 

But some people brought it up, and I should add that on a forum that is not supposed to have namining and shaming, if his sexuality had not been brought into the mix, no one who hadn't watched the video would even know which youtuber people were talking about. It simply should never been a part of the conversation.

What has bothered me about the actions of a few in this thread, is that while complaining about what some feel is general bad behavior, some people have used it as an excuse to vent generally about how his outward displays of homosexuality bother them, and that it "makes them cringe", etc. 

I am not shielding him because of his sexuality, but we would not even be talking about it had others not brought it up in the first place, using this situation as a chance to attack him for being outwardly gay and proud. Most of you are not homophobic and perhaps none of you are consciously, and I am not referring to any specific people because I do not want to judge the hearts and minds of others, but I do ask people to think about their words, and what they mean, or at least how they can come across to others. 

If he genuinely did something wrong, you should be able to point it out without mentioning his sexual preferences at all. 

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by Tesseract7777

[Unus]

45 minutes ago, Tesseract7777 said:

I've thought this over carefully, after steering clear of the thread for a night. I want to say my peace on one thing, I might not respond to comments, not out of disrespect, but in order to moderate my own behavior. 

If you think a particular Youtuber has done something that goes beyond the normal line of bounds, there are official people to report it to, one who has even read this thread and replied to it already. I in no way endorse using someone's sexual preferences as a shield for bad behavior, but that is not what myself or others are doing. 

My only intention was to point out that some people appear to be unnecessarily bringing his sexual preferences into the mix. Whether he is homoesexual or not, and whether his outward homosexuality bothers you or not, should not have any bearing whatsoever on whether he did something wrong in a video. It should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Because it is not wrong to be homosexual or outwardly homosexual. If he did something wrong, there is no need to even make that a part of the conversation. 

But some people brought it up, and I should add that on a forum that is not supposed to have namining and shaming, if his sexuality had not been brought into the mix, no one who hadn't watched the video would even know which youtuber people were talking about. It simply should never been a part of the conversation.

What has bothered me about the actions of a few in this thread, is that while complaining about what some feel is general bad behavior, some people have used it as an excuse to vent generally about how his outward displays of homosexuality bother them, and that it "makes them cringe", etc. 

I am not shielding him because of his sexuality, but we would not even be talking about it had others not brought it up in the first place, using this situation as a chance to attack him for being outwardly gay and proud. Most of you are not homophobic and perhaps none of you are consciously, and I am not referring to any specific people because I do not want to judge the hearts and minds of others, but I do ask people to think about their words, and what they mean, or at least how they can come across to others. 

If he genuinely did something wrong, you should be able to point it out without mentioning his sexual preferences at all. 

 

The annoying problem though? What other identifying features does he have? Isn't his sexuality one of his biggest selling point bits of his act/internet demeanor? As someone else said, without this identifying trait of his routine, the description could be slapped onto anyone who shows negativity, like the Quiet robo-actress.

 

With him identified through his overblown sexualizations, we can at least talk about the guy without thousands of unknown Tenno with no real opinion on the subject finding his proper name and mobbing him to defend and/or lynch him.

[Tesseract7777]

32 minutes ago, Unus said:

The annoying problem though? What other identifying features does he have? Isn't his sexuality one of his biggest selling point bits of his act/internet demeanor? As someone else said, without this identifying trait of his routine, the description could be slapped onto anyone who shows negativity, like the Quiet robo-actress.

 

With him identified through his overblown sexualizations, we can at least talk about the guy without thousands of unknown Tenno with no real opinion on the subject finding his proper name and mobbing him to defend and/or lynch him.

I think it's tricky because it's kind of ill defined as to whether talking about him on the forums directly is naming and shaming or not. 

On the one hand directly mentioning people is naming and shaming, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that applies as he is sort of a "public figure".

But then, if he's a public figure we shouldn't have to worry about using a trait to sneakily mention him, we should just call him by name. 

And if he isn't a enough of a public figure and shouldn't be named and shamed, all this hinting, considering how well known he is to some, basically might as well be calling him directly by name anyways. IDK, just my stream of thought on that. I think the underlying issue with what you are talking about is that it is really not defined well as to whether criticizing a youtuber openly on the forums counts as naming and shaming or not. 

Edited September 21, 2017 by Tesseract7777

[Unus]

12 minutes ago, Tesseract7777 said:

I think it's tricky because it's kind of ill defined as to whether talking about him on the forums directly is naming and shaming or not. 

On the one hand directly mentioning people is naming and shaming, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that applies as he is sort of a "public figure".

But then, if he's a public figure we shouldn't have to worry about using a trait to sneakily mention him, we should just call him by name. 

And if he isn't a enough of a public figure and shouldn't be named and shamed, all this hinting, considering how well known he is to some, basically might as well be calling him directly by name anyways. IDK, just my stream of thought on that. I think the underlying issue with what you are talking about is that it is really not defined well as to whether criticizing a youtuber openly on the forums counts as naming and shaming or not. 

True, true, especially with the fact that, at any time, someone could send him over here to read this message and he could stock up on even more ammo to blast folks with or laugh about it since he's ""affected"" people.

 

I just find it as the best middle-ground we have without forming a lynch mob or being all cloak-and dagger about it (the author COULD have never made the topic and gone straight to the bosses, but, can't very well fix that, cat bes outta the bag now). 

 Everything I've said here I would gladly say to his face, the one key factor I feel that folks should always remember, when talking about, well, anyone.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Unus

[(XBOX)BluAina]

7 hours ago, Helch0rn said:

can't speak for others but for me it's when someone wishes harm to be done to other people for stupid reasons like their political views.

 

So it varies on a case by case basis? Asking due to what y'all consider one behavior a good, someone else can deem it bad. Isn't it up to the devs themselves. Or if everyone draws the same conclusion a person can be repramanded?

[Unus]

20 minutes ago, (Xbox One)VTG xSTEVIEx said:

So it varies on a case by case basis? Asking due to what y'all consider one behavior a good, someone else can deem it bad. Isn't it up to the devs themselves. Or if everyone draws the same conclusion a person can be repramanded?

In the end, as I said before, our true opinions are irrelevant. If this chap wants to flood the Internet with disgusting opinions, so be it (even if one of those opinions is, ironically, a hatred of free speech.)

 

However, because of the fact that the mook in question has targeted the COMPANY HE IS HELD UP BY AS AN EXAMPLE OF A WARFRAME YOUTUBER and individuals under the jurisdiction of said company? Well, hope you enjoy the boot heading to your arse, be it leaveing a bruise in the form of a reprimand or going all the way up said arse and smearing you across the floor in the form of a company withdrawal of support.

[Helch0rn]

8 hours ago, (Xbox One)VTG xSTEVIEx said:

So it varies on a case by case basis? Asking due to what y'all consider one behavior a good, someone else can deem it bad. Isn't it up to the devs themselves. Or if everyone draws the same conclusion a person can be repramanded?

As I said, I am only speaking for myself and noone is forced to side with me.

That being said,there are companys that show some double standarts and in general people are more likely to get kicked to the curb for conservative views than "liberal" because in our current overly politically correct times noone wants to be associated with anything that is not left wing.

If any of that applies to DE I don't know

[DasHurz]

I get that people feel offended, but anything other than the "insults" are just a particular style of video. If you don't agree with that, look for some other partner to watch.

It's the same as if you couldn't bear with terrible puns and coloured visors or irish accent, just to name some wild, completley random examples. You move on and watch something else.

 

As for the insults, I don't mind them. I can see how people would though. But personally, I don't care.

Edited September 21, 2017 by DasHurz

[Deshiel]

It's funny how these streamers themselves are safe and protected, I would even go as far to write "treasured", but when randoms try to channel them and act like them over here at the forums, they get slammed and destroyed by the mods for breaking the rules. 

[phoenix1992]

After checking some of Shy's videos...

She is totally not "Good". But that was never the point, was it?  A cynical narrator that does not take crap, it is a good content creator and is capable of making me want to play Warframe for fun and giggles. "Good" enough for me.

Or we are going to pretend that Warframe is PG 13 game?

[Rayxen]

1 hour ago, phoenix1992 said:

After checking some of Shy's videos...

She is totally not "Good". But that was never the point, was it?  A cynical narrator that does not take crap, it is a good content creator and is capable of making me want to play Warframe for fun and giggles. "Good" enough for me.

Or we are going to pretend that Warframe is PG 13 game?

I'm pretty certain this is not about Shy.

[phoenix1992]

Just now, SpikedFox said:

I'm pretty certain this is not about Shy.

As OP does not want to wave fingers (good on him for that), we are left with assumptions. All said and done one could qualify a lot of streamers or content creators as "Rude", but this is a matter of perception and taste.

[Unus]

17 minutes ago, phoenix1992 said:

As OP does not want to wave fingers (good on him for that), we are left with assumptions. All said and done one could qualify a lot of streamers or content creators as "Rude", but this is a matter of perception and taste.

Horrifically, the "homosexual" and "disgusting "not said in public opinions"" are meant to be allusions to the real culprit sir/mam, people thought the poster was referring to Madam Quiet at the beginning, but, she hasn't verbally attacked Digital Extremes or other sponsors under their umbrella.