So, The Escapist is in the news again...
- Thread starter IceForce
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really didn't get the impression that Jim was ranting, or that he thought people using AdBlock were automatically horible people. I thought he made good points. He said basically that if you like the content, consider turning off AdBlock. Not too much to ask, in my opinion. Then again, the ads can be problematic when they don't work correctly and you have to refresh the page.
Houseman said:
As Marter said, the flash was a temporary fix that the Tech Team developed because of an issue. In the last update for Google Chrome, the coding for fonts to be displayed on websites like the Escapist were broken by Chrome's update, so anyone view the site while using Google Chrome would usually end up getting the pages to look like this:IceForce said:
What I don't get is how The Escapist staff feel they can fight the use of That-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named by banning any mention of it. They must realize that that is not going to stop people from using it.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to visit the Escapist propaganda theatre. Also there are 4 lights.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to visit the Escapist propaganda theatre. Also there are 4 lights.
Dammit! Why does it have to shine light on the negative side of The Escapist? It's not really helping their positive reputation...
Still, misunderstandings lead to even more misunderstandings... I was both surprised and not surprised that the thread, itself, turned into a "A-word soapbox/confessions" thread in a matter of "less than" hours... I can [try to] understand what Jim was trying to do in terms of the video itself, but the fact that it went more south than a typical "that other A-word" thread makes me feel like not everyone in that thread either understood what Jim was trying to say (in general) or just thought that that thread (in general) was the exception to the rules of the forums themselves, in regard to the "A-word"...
Besides, that article seems to be missing the point involving the situation, itself... especially that last paragraph...
Still, misunderstandings lead to even more misunderstandings... I was both surprised and not surprised that the thread, itself, turned into a "A-word soapbox/confessions" thread in a matter of "less than" hours... I can [try to] understand what Jim was trying to do in terms of the video itself, but the fact that it went more south than a typical "that other A-word" thread makes me feel like not everyone in that thread either understood what Jim was trying to say (in general) or just thought that that thread (in general) was the exception to the rules of the forums themselves, in regard to the "A-word"...
Besides, that article seems to be missing the point involving the situation, itself... especially that last paragraph...
@Marter @Neronium I see, thanks. I didn't know there was currently a problem with that, as I've never personally experienced any problems with the Escapist fonts, at my end.
Though I'm pretty sure Jimquisition has already done one or more episodes on that topic.
Piracy maybe? You get warnings for admitting to that here too.VanQ said:
Though I'm pretty sure Jimquisition has already done one or more episodes on that topic.
How about releasing it as a bonus episode on Youtube. Discussion would take place on a neutral ground (filled with Youtube trolls, of course), but it would be away from this fiasco, and everyone could speak their mind and actual discussion might come about.Jimothy Sterling said:
Or would that violate your contract somehow?
No problem. Yeah Goolge messed up on that one and for a while I thought it was only me. I ended up reporting it to the Tech Team and they made the temporary fix. Once the new update to Chrome is released the blinking should stop. If it crashes your browser again tell the Tech Team about it, as I've so far not had it crash on me for mobile viewing (currently typing this message with Safari on and iPod) nor Chrome, but I remember Marter saying he had an instance of it crashing his mobile view. It's not a perfect fix, but as the picture I posted showed, it's definitely better than the old problem. XDIceForce said:
Free Speech in America has absolutely nothing to do with what private organisations do within their confines.Atomic Spy Crab said:
How so? Nothing about this thread is anything new or different for The Escapist, so how are they "starting" to resemble anything? And since when has the site despised any of that?
Holy shit... I didn't realize that that thread had blown up into such a cluster fuck. I commented near the beginning and then wasn't on the site for the next few days. In retrospect, it seems kind of obvious that it went the way it did. It certainly didn't help that earlier in the thread, Jim made it sound like there were going to be exceptions to the rules on Thing That Must Not Be Named. Judging from the huge amounts of mod wrath, that wasn't the case. It honestly looks like a trap designed to find out who's using Thing That Must Not Be Named and then punish them for it. I'm sure that's not the case but it does look kind of damning.
A quick question: Is it possible for an Escapist video to be posted WITHOUT a comments thread?Jimothy Sterling said:
Because, if it's good enough for Anita Sarkeesian to disable comments on her videos...
In any case, I'm most disappointed to hear that we may never see whatever future video you had intended to post.
When the moderation on a website actively impedes the posting of site content and the discussion thereof; that's when the moderation oversteps its boundaries, in my opinion.
I typically avoid these forums like the plague because of stuff like this. I really do enjoy some of the content on this site, Jim in particular. However, this is really silly. It would have been nice for Jim to have a concrete deal with the moderation staff when he did the video, but things like that are sometimes impossible to predict. I pay for the pubclub to support the content I enjoy, but when things like this happen - it kind of makes me wish some of the shows were just on youtube. As for the article, the writer really read way too much into the video. They had an agenda and skewed words to match that.
I do hope Jim continues to do videos on controversial subjects, but perhaps he can work it out with the moderators so no one gets unnecessarily banned for discussing it.
I do hope Jim continues to do videos on controversial subjects, but perhaps he can work it out with the moderators so no one gets unnecessarily banned for discussing it.
Well, the only other topics I can think of that cause the Banhammer to swing so freely are paedophilia and piracy. And I think we can assume one of those is more likely to fall under the purview of Jim Sterling than the other, can't we?VanQ said:
I mean, who really gives a shit about Somalis?
I don't see why people don't like how strict the mods are here. they really aren't all THAT strict. Most of the time when I get a warning and feel it's unfair I'm usually right and when I explain it to the mods they usually agree and overturn it. They may be wrong occasionally but that's just because they're human like everybody else and they're still fair about it when you point it out to them. This is literally the only site I know of where the mods don't get butthurt when you explain to them why a moderation decision they made was wrong and they realize you're right. On most websites when you tell a mod they're wrong about something they essentially call you a fag and start modding you just because you hurt their pride. On one occasion on another site I actually called out a mod for breaking the rules and got banned for "trolling". Here if you do they they just go "Oh hey you're right" and are cool with it. Being a mod is a thankless job. People hate you when you give them a warning for anything but they never stop to think that maybe they got a warning for a reason.
And besides, at least they aren't GameFAQS. If you try to contest a moderation dispute there they just say "Nuh-uh" and tell you to fuck off. Even if you're right. I don't know why they even have the option to dispute moderations in the first place.
And besides, at least they aren't GameFAQS. If you try to contest a moderation dispute there they just say "Nuh-uh" and tell you to fuck off. Even if you're right. I don't know why they even have the option to dispute moderations in the first place.
I have a question I wanted to ask in the other thread, but I was scared off by all the warnings and threat of ban-hammers.
Where exactly does the revenue come from with ads? Is it based on the number of page views or the number of times the advertisement is clicked on by a user ... or both? Or do advertisers pay a fixed amount for a period of time, regardless of clicks/views? How does this payment model work, exactly?
I've never run a website or hosted anything on-line, but the impression I get from reading various pleas for monetary support from small content creators makes it sound like ads generate revenue when visitors click on them or follow a link on the site to purchase something. But I've also heard that page views are important and it makes sense that advertisers might pay more if your site is more popular.
The reason why I ask is because I have seen various people stating that they turn of "that which shall not be named" while on sites that they like or want to support as a way of helping the content creators. But if the advertisements only pay out for clicks, it wouldn't really help just to SEE the ads. You could have to interact with them, too.
Also, if the advertisements pay based on page views, are they able to detect if the person viewing the page can "see" the ads? If the use of "that which shall not be named" is not detectable, then it seems like those people would still be providing traffic and page views to the site, which might help bring in advertising dollars, even though they aren't seeing or clicking the ads. Of course, from the advertiser's standpoint, I can see how that would be a bad thing so I imagine there are ways to avoid or try to prevent that from happening. The advertiser wants you to see and click on the ad and ideally buy the product/service ... or at least pick up some malware for data-mining purposes. None of that happens if you can't see the ads. Still, I don't work in advertising and I've never run a website so I have no idea how the other side of this business model works - anyone else know more about it?
Where exactly does the revenue come from with ads? Is it based on the number of page views or the number of times the advertisement is clicked on by a user ... or both? Or do advertisers pay a fixed amount for a period of time, regardless of clicks/views? How does this payment model work, exactly?
I've never run a website or hosted anything on-line, but the impression I get from reading various pleas for monetary support from small content creators makes it sound like ads generate revenue when visitors click on them or follow a link on the site to purchase something. But I've also heard that page views are important and it makes sense that advertisers might pay more if your site is more popular.
The reason why I ask is because I have seen various people stating that they turn of "that which shall not be named" while on sites that they like or want to support as a way of helping the content creators. But if the advertisements only pay out for clicks, it wouldn't really help just to SEE the ads. You could have to interact with them, too.
Also, if the advertisements pay based on page views, are they able to detect if the person viewing the page can "see" the ads? If the use of "that which shall not be named" is not detectable, then it seems like those people would still be providing traffic and page views to the site, which might help bring in advertising dollars, even though they aren't seeing or clicking the ads. Of course, from the advertiser's standpoint, I can see how that would be a bad thing so I imagine there are ways to avoid or try to prevent that from happening. The advertiser wants you to see and click on the ad and ideally buy the product/service ... or at least pick up some malware for data-mining purposes. None of that happens if you can't see the ads. Still, I don't work in advertising and I've never run a website so I have no idea how the other side of this business model works - anyone else know more about it?