Too much money can do that to you. And I am damn serious.
After passing a certain threshold (usually when hunger for money starts to disperse), you start to realize some new shit and life is starting the take different turns.
He looks pretty depressed now. I haven't seen a video of his in ages and it's a big change compared to a few years ago. If I was in his shoes I would've retired a few times by now.
Riot apologises after League of Legends dev says streamer will "die from a coke overdose" "... then we'll be Gucci."
Quote:
A developer at League of Legends studio Riot appears to have left the company after controversial comments he made about a popular streamer blew up online.
Aaron Rutledge, known online as Riot Sanjuro, hit out at popular League streamer "Tyler1" in a series of Discord posts.
22-year-old Tyler1 is considered by some to be one of the most toxic League of Legends streamers around. He has a reputation for abusive in-game chat, trolling teammates and generally being as big of a nuisance as possible. Riot's banned him from League multiple times, and he's created alternative accounts in response.
Tyler1 now claims he's reformed, but Rutledge, however, seemed unconvinced in a series of posts on the League of Legends Discord.
Rutledge accused Tyler1 of making over $100,000 a year being a "dick" in a game he didn't make before insulting his body.
Quote:
He looks like a damn homunculus.
Honestly... it's fine he'll die from a coke overdose or testicular cancer from all the steroids... then we'll be gucci.
After Discord users questioned Rutledge's comments, he tried to explain his outburst.
You know how much bullshit he's caused me? Personally?
I've spent many many hours of my work day dealing with his bullshit.
If games had terrorists.
I mean I get it, I get the comedy of his streams.
And his 'brand'.
But it's at the expense of a lot of other innocent people.
And that's not cool.
He's had over 20 accounts permabanned.
All content gone... all rank gone.
What kind of sociopath does that?
He only does it for the views and the % $.
Riot apologises after League of Legends dev says streamer will "die from a coke overdose" "... then we'll be Gucci."
Quote:
A developer at League of Legends studio Riot appears to have left the company after controversial comments he made about a popular streamer blew up online.
Aaron Rutledge, known online as Riot Sanjuro, hit out at popular League streamer "Tyler1" in a series of Discord posts.
22-year-old Tyler1 is considered by some to be one of the most toxic League of Legends streamers around. He has a reputation for abusive in-game chat, trolling teammates and generally being as big of a nuisance as possible. Riot's banned him from League multiple times, and he's created alternative accounts in response.
Tyler1 now claims he's reformed, but Rutledge, however, seemed unconvinced in a series of posts on the League of Legends Discord.
Rutledge accused Tyler1 of making over $100,000 a year being a "dick" in a game he didn't make before insulting his body.
Quote:
He looks like a damn homunculus.
Honestly... it's fine he'll die from a coke overdose or testicular cancer from all the steroids... then we'll be gucci.
After Discord users questioned Rutledge's comments, he tried to explain his outburst.
You know how much bullshit he's caused me? Personally?
I've spent many many hours of my work day dealing with his bullshit.
If games had terrorists.
I mean I get it, I get the comedy of his streams.
And his 'brand'.
But it's at the expense of a lot of other innocent people.
And that's not cool.
He's had over 20 accounts permabanned.
All content gone... all rank gone.
What kind of sociopath does that?
He only does it for the views and the % $.
So, in conclusion, the toxic streamer is allowed to continue his "work" but the developer got fired. It's baffling the kind of justice we get in online medium these days.
Yeah, I don't like how many companies would rather fire their employees when they say something controversial or "too strong" but in the right spirit, rather than make a stand towards all the bullshit they get from the loud-mouthed plebes.
Should he have said that Tyler1 would "die of cocaine overdose"? Probably not; he should have said something more socially acceptable. But he is certainly in the right to complain about this sort of behavior, and yet he got fired.
Well, the employee is probably a liability for Riot after saying this. But shouldn't have Riot used DMCA by now to get rid of such a toxic streamer? He apparently caused a lot of problems not only to their customers but to their employees as well.
I still dont see what the issue is, after 1001 complaint videos.
My response is still "Stop using a free service, and complaining. You get what you pay for".
You base your livelihood income solely on a free to use service that pays you money for it, with no business contract, and zero upfront cost or commitment? Feel lucky you got the privilege of it lasting as long as it did. Not complain it dried up after a while.
I compare it to trying to start a storefront business, and Youtube owns a stripmall.
To try to help you get started they decide provide you with a empty store, sends customers to you, pay for the lights, water, rent, shelving space and a stockboy that keeps your products stocked for you. All you have to do is show up with a box of stuff you want to sell, they take care of ALL the rest of you making money and bringing you customers.
Sure they make money off parking space for the people going to your store, but they owe you NOTHING. You used them of your own free will to start your store there because it was free.
Then one day you start complaining about how the manager of the stripmall is a dick and they somehow owe you something because they changed the rules of what free services they provide or how they provide them.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Thu, 5th Oct 2017 16:24; edited 1 time in total
But to me thats the problem dsergei.
That it seems people feel youtube is a public service, and needs someone to step in to protect their right to use it to make money on their terms with zero actual effort into following up to make sure it does.
The smart channels have found sponsors, do their own work to find advertisers, go fight their own copyright battles...you know what an actual personal business would do.
As it seems 95% of the complaints is that youtube isnt doing that for them for free at the same level of quality like they use to.
And youtube can be treated as a utility. No one complains that they are stopping needed content that needs to be published from getting out. They are complaining they cant make a profit off of it as easy anymore. BIG difference.
Nothing about net neutrality is at the core of these complaints that all these channels are making. They are fussing that they have to go and do what any real personal business would have to do..Follow up on making money off their products when handing it over to a 3rd party distributor. Only difference is this 3rd party charges you NOTHING to do it, and they complain about the lack quality they get for that free work.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
I would like to take some time to congratulate WaldoJ for this topics name. It still makes me chuckle now and then and it's still as relevant as when he created it 4 years ago. And it's the last LOL that really sells it Good job WaldoJ!
1st.) Freedom of speech doesn't apply to youtube, its a private company. Them deciding who gets paid off what content isn't violating any free speech clause. Not promoting the opposite viewpoint isnt violating it either.
They can decide one day that only videos about dogs pissing on sidewalks is allowed and it wouldn't violate your 'freedom of speech'.
2nd) Make up your mind, either Kasey should have ads and your pissed he doesn't make money off talking about the shooting, OR you are pissed that coke/pepsi does run ad while talking about the shooting, you cant be both.
Watched the whole thing, either hes outraged about Kasey not getting ads, or outraged someone would dare run ads over it..Im not sure as they are polar opposite outlooks.
My viewpoint still:
You dont like it, do not use it for your money income...pretty fucking simple.
They still have no contract, no standard payment for services, no obligation either way to each other.
IF these creators want to bitch. Bitch about lack of contracts that both sides sign that outlines whats expected for money paid for said services.
One that has: You pay youtube $X a month to host and distribute your content, and in turn they give you the outlines of what it is in writing that they will have to stick to, on delivering it and paying you for that content and what they expect of your in return.
Right now its: I upload what I want, when I want, about what I want, for free to you guys. And Im not happy on the lack of commitment or pre-agreement on how this will work out.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
Last edited by DXWarlock on Mon, 9th Oct 2017 17:32; edited 1 time in total
My viewpoint still:
You dont like it, do not use it for your money income...pretty fucking simple.
They still have no contract, no standard payment for services, no obligation either way to each other.
Just because they aren't entitled to anything, does not mean that they can't argue for it. As youtube does as they see fit, they might as well just listen.
I agree with you, however, that youtube was never a safe income choice. It was/is a gamble.
No I totally agree, they should argue for it. But they seem to be wanting something guaranteed, in return for nothing they guarantee.
In all reality they are just independent contractors for a company. And no one in their right mind as one would goto a company and say "Here is my product/abilities. I will just show up and work for you, you pay me/not pay me whatever you feel like. I dont want the hassle of working out a job contract with you."
They would sign a contract, one side outlines what they will pay, the other side outlines what will get done for that pay.
I think that's the core problem here. They want pay for whatever the hell they want to upload, without any commitment on their part of what that is, how often they upload it, or what it encompasses. But they demand full commitment from youtube on paying them for that content.
To me, its the equal of someone showing up at a construction site going "I got skills you can make money off of. But lets not get into details and agreements of what that is, or what its worth. I might show up and paint a wall, or run some plumbing, or hell build a fence you dont want, Who knows..all I know is whatever it is I hope you pay me for it because I did work."
They should argue for legal binding contracts as any sub contractor/independent contractor would do that dictates what both sides expects, and delivers on.
Until then, they are just dangling their dick in the breeze fussing about THEIR lack of willingness to want a contract they have to stick to, while demanding youtube sticks to some unwritten one they made up.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
They want pay for whatever the hell they want to upload, without any commitment on their part of what that is, how often they upload it, or what it encompasses.
This part though does not need to be as strict as it would traditionally have to be. Basically the worth of content could be determined via number of views and users. And the payment really could be through ad revenue.
So the old model of monetization seems like a valid solution to me. There was no guarantee from youtubes side though and thus also no entitlement on the creators side. I'm starting to see their point, now that I write this . If youtube's guidelines of what constitutes ad friendly content were sane, transparent and its determination accurate enough, it would work, no?
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
