|
On March 16 2015 20:39 Mallidon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 20:19 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 20:17 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 16:17 InDLegacy wrote:
Oh please. Let me point out what this is really all about. This is about TL trying to avoid any of this drama. There are trolls all over Twitch and Reddit looking to create drama anywhere and everywhere Winter is advertised, and TL doesn't want any of it. If you honestly expect any rational person to accept that you can't gauge if Winter meets your 100-150 viewer requirement, viewbots or not, then you are trying too hard to come up with excuses. You can already look up stats on his subs, being way over that amount (Over 600).
Avilo has had an obsessive attitude towards Winter for a long time now. The kind that borders stalking. This is why any mention of his name warrants a time out in Winter's chat. I looked through that reddit post. I saw the proof. I agree that there has undoubtedly been viewbots on Winter's channel. Yet some of those "suspicious" accounts Avilo cites follow typical stupid naming schemes people have been using for decades now. Really? We're to suspect xxCloudUchihaxxk because his name is dumb and he is only following Winter?
There is only one party that can determine if Winter is at fault here. That is Twitch. All Twitch has done thus far is work with Winter to take measures to stop his channel from getting viewbot traffic. They have in the past banned streamers for viewboting. Yet here they haven't. I'm sorry but you can't just point out "Twitch is doing nothing about it" like they are simply choosing not to.
For anyone else, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The evidence Avilo presented is not good enough to determine if Winter backed those bots.
All being said. Winter HAS helped the Sc2 community. His viewership is the only way SC2 hits the top streamed games list when there are no professional games being streamed. For TL to take a stance like this so publicly, I can only find it disrespectful. Sums my thoughts up pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty and the 'evidence' against Winter is pretty lightweight imo. Feels a little bit like TL has given in to the pitchfork crowd because they don't want the drama. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a bit sad  Edit - Added sadface Please sum up the evidence for me, I'm curious Highlights for me: ''Most if not all of these should be connected to viewbotting. I apologize if an account has been listed that is innocent.'' ''NOTE: There are several accounts not listed here in these newer screencaps I suspect to be bots.'' ''Previous banned viewbotter EggYSC2.'' Full of opinion and jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence. He even states some of these accounts might be 'innocent' but still lists them. Listing a new account of this Heroes of the Storm Eggy guy playing poker just because he previously used viewbots for Heroes and has apparently apologised for his behaviour and had his old account banned. Would be pretty stupid to start up viewbotting again then, but he's listed again as a 'suspected viewbotter' with absolutely no proof that he is doing so on his new account. Basically, if you want to bring hard evidence on people, don't go throwing in ANYTHING that you personally suspect as a viewbotter, because it dilutes your entire argument (or at least it should). Pretty much like in a criminal court where certain charges cannot be proved, so only the ones that can be proved will be brought to ensure a conviction.
That's a quite dogmatic interpretation. Outside of pure mathematics proof and certainty isn't a thing. The article is just being responsible, the evidence and approach seem very strong.
|
On March 16 2015 20:52 mostevil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 20:39 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:19 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 20:17 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 16:17 InDLegacy wrote:
Oh please. Let me point out what this is really all about. This is about TL trying to avoid any of this drama. There are trolls all over Twitch and Reddit looking to create drama anywhere and everywhere Winter is advertised, and TL doesn't want any of it. If you honestly expect any rational person to accept that you can't gauge if Winter meets your 100-150 viewer requirement, viewbots or not, then you are trying too hard to come up with excuses. You can already look up stats on his subs, being way over that amount (Over 600).
Avilo has had an obsessive attitude towards Winter for a long time now. The kind that borders stalking. This is why any mention of his name warrants a time out in Winter's chat. I looked through that reddit post. I saw the proof. I agree that there has undoubtedly been viewbots on Winter's channel. Yet some of those "suspicious" accounts Avilo cites follow typical stupid naming schemes people have been using for decades now. Really? We're to suspect xxCloudUchihaxxk because his name is dumb and he is only following Winter?
There is only one party that can determine if Winter is at fault here. That is Twitch. All Twitch has done thus far is work with Winter to take measures to stop his channel from getting viewbot traffic. They have in the past banned streamers for viewboting. Yet here they haven't. I'm sorry but you can't just point out "Twitch is doing nothing about it" like they are simply choosing not to.
For anyone else, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The evidence Avilo presented is not good enough to determine if Winter backed those bots.
All being said. Winter HAS helped the Sc2 community. His viewership is the only way SC2 hits the top streamed games list when there are no professional games being streamed. For TL to take a stance like this so publicly, I can only find it disrespectful. Sums my thoughts up pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty and the 'evidence' against Winter is pretty lightweight imo. Feels a little bit like TL has given in to the pitchfork crowd because they don't want the drama. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a bit sad Edit - Added sadface Please sum up the evidence for me, I'm curious Highlights for me: ''Most if not all of these should be connected to viewbotting. I apologize if an account has been listed that is innocent.'' ''NOTE: There are several accounts not listed here in these newer screencaps I suspect to be bots.'' ''Previous banned viewbotter EggYSC2.'' Full of opinion and jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence. He even states some of these accounts might be 'innocent' but still lists them. Listing a new account of this Heroes of the Storm Eggy guy playing poker just because he previously used viewbots for Heroes and has apparently apologised for his behaviour and had his old account banned. Would be pretty stupid to start up viewbotting again then, but he's listed again as a 'suspected viewbotter' with absolutely no proof that he is doing so on his new account. Basically, if you want to bring hard evidence on people, don't go throwing in ANYTHING that you personally suspect as a viewbotter, because it dilutes your entire argument (or at least it should). Pretty much like in a criminal court where certain charges cannot be proved, so only the ones that can be proved will be brought to ensure a conviction. That's a quite dogmatic interpretation. Outside of pure mathematics proof and certainty isn't a thing. The article is just being responsible, the evidence and approach seem very strong.
As I say, innocent until proven guilty. Yes I'll admit there must be some form of viewbotting going on, but to punish streamers when they could be completely innocent seems a bit harsh when it is clear that they are probably eligible to be featured without the viewbots.
Also the 'why would someone else pay for viewbotters' has come up, and it could be argued that a lot of people could. Who's to say Winter didn't become quite popular... Some people didn't like it and accused him of viewbotting, then became responsible for the viewbotting themselves? I've watched streams where people will just spam donate money to someone to troll, so to say that it's completely outside the realms of possibility would be wrong. Might seem far fetched, but only about as much as this whole 'evidence pointing to streamers doing it' is to me, since there is little to none.
|
On March 16 2015 21:04 Mallidon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 20:52 mostevil wrote:On March 16 2015 20:39 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:19 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 20:17 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 16:17 InDLegacy wrote:
Oh please. Let me point out what this is really all about. This is about TL trying to avoid any of this drama. There are trolls all over Twitch and Reddit looking to create drama anywhere and everywhere Winter is advertised, and TL doesn't want any of it. If you honestly expect any rational person to accept that you can't gauge if Winter meets your 100-150 viewer requirement, viewbots or not, then you are trying too hard to come up with excuses. You can already look up stats on his subs, being way over that amount (Over 600).
Avilo has had an obsessive attitude towards Winter for a long time now. The kind that borders stalking. This is why any mention of his name warrants a time out in Winter's chat. I looked through that reddit post. I saw the proof. I agree that there has undoubtedly been viewbots on Winter's channel. Yet some of those "suspicious" accounts Avilo cites follow typical stupid naming schemes people have been using for decades now. Really? We're to suspect xxCloudUchihaxxk because his name is dumb and he is only following Winter?
There is only one party that can determine if Winter is at fault here. That is Twitch. All Twitch has done thus far is work with Winter to take measures to stop his channel from getting viewbot traffic. They have in the past banned streamers for viewboting. Yet here they haven't. I'm sorry but you can't just point out "Twitch is doing nothing about it" like they are simply choosing not to.
For anyone else, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The evidence Avilo presented is not good enough to determine if Winter backed those bots.
All being said. Winter HAS helped the Sc2 community. His viewership is the only way SC2 hits the top streamed games list when there are no professional games being streamed. For TL to take a stance like this so publicly, I can only find it disrespectful. Sums my thoughts up pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty and the 'evidence' against Winter is pretty lightweight imo. Feels a little bit like TL has given in to the pitchfork crowd because they don't want the drama. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a bit sad Edit - Added sadface Please sum up the evidence for me, I'm curious Highlights for me: ''Most if not all of these should be connected to viewbotting. I apologize if an account has been listed that is innocent.'' ''NOTE: There are several accounts not listed here in these newer screencaps I suspect to be bots.'' ''Previous banned viewbotter EggYSC2.'' Full of opinion and jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence. He even states some of these accounts might be 'innocent' but still lists them. Listing a new account of this Heroes of the Storm Eggy guy playing poker just because he previously used viewbots for Heroes and has apparently apologised for his behaviour and had his old account banned. Would be pretty stupid to start up viewbotting again then, but he's listed again as a 'suspected viewbotter' with absolutely no proof that he is doing so on his new account. Basically, if you want to bring hard evidence on people, don't go throwing in ANYTHING that you personally suspect as a viewbotter, because it dilutes your entire argument (or at least it should). Pretty much like in a criminal court where certain charges cannot be proved, so only the ones that can be proved will be brought to ensure a conviction. That's a quite dogmatic interpretation. Outside of pure mathematics proof and certainty isn't a thing. The article is just being responsible, the evidence and approach seem very strong. As I say, innocent until proven guilty. Yes I'll admit there must be some form of viewbotting going on, but to punish streamers when they could be completely innocent seems a bit harsh when it is clear that they are probably eligible to be featured without the viewbots. Also the 'why would someone else pay for viewbotters' has come up, and it could be argued that a lot of people could. Who's to say Winter didn't become quite popular... Some people didn't like it and accused him of viewbotting, then became responsible for the viewbotting themselves? I've watched streams where people will just spam donate money to someone to troll, so to say that it's completely outside the realms of possibility would be wrong. Might seem far fetched, but only about as much as this whole 'evidence pointing to streamers doing it' is to me, since there is none.
Why don't you respond to this:
The full evidence compilation has a text file that has my completed viewbotter research, along with snippits from my IRC chat log (as well as the log file itself) from Winter's channel as he was alledgely being DDOS'ed. Viewbots were leaving in a mass exodus. Why would viewbots be leaving when Winter's internet is failing? Could it be that it's his internet that is running said bots?
This is not about accusing someone of a violent crime btw. If you like watching Winters stream than that's absolutely fine.
|
Russian Federation5 Posts
250 viewers to get featured... poor poor SC2
|
What's the deal here? Tasteless and Artosis scammed the community too, but no one did anything about it?
User was warned for this post
|
On March 16 2015 21:07 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:04 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:52 mostevil wrote:On March 16 2015 20:39 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:19 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 20:17 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 16:17 InDLegacy wrote:
Oh please. Let me point out what this is really all about. This is about TL trying to avoid any of this drama. There are trolls all over Twitch and Reddit looking to create drama anywhere and everywhere Winter is advertised, and TL doesn't want any of it. If you honestly expect any rational person to accept that you can't gauge if Winter meets your 100-150 viewer requirement, viewbots or not, then you are trying too hard to come up with excuses. You can already look up stats on his subs, being way over that amount (Over 600).
Avilo has had an obsessive attitude towards Winter for a long time now. The kind that borders stalking. This is why any mention of his name warrants a time out in Winter's chat. I looked through that reddit post. I saw the proof. I agree that there has undoubtedly been viewbots on Winter's channel. Yet some of those "suspicious" accounts Avilo cites follow typical stupid naming schemes people have been using for decades now. Really? We're to suspect xxCloudUchihaxxk because his name is dumb and he is only following Winter?
There is only one party that can determine if Winter is at fault here. That is Twitch. All Twitch has done thus far is work with Winter to take measures to stop his channel from getting viewbot traffic. They have in the past banned streamers for viewboting. Yet here they haven't. I'm sorry but you can't just point out "Twitch is doing nothing about it" like they are simply choosing not to.
For anyone else, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The evidence Avilo presented is not good enough to determine if Winter backed those bots.
All being said. Winter HAS helped the Sc2 community. His viewership is the only way SC2 hits the top streamed games list when there are no professional games being streamed. For TL to take a stance like this so publicly, I can only find it disrespectful. Sums my thoughts up pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty and the 'evidence' against Winter is pretty lightweight imo. Feels a little bit like TL has given in to the pitchfork crowd because they don't want the drama. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a bit sad Edit - Added sadface Please sum up the evidence for me, I'm curious Highlights for me: ''Most if not all of these should be connected to viewbotting. I apologize if an account has been listed that is innocent.'' ''NOTE: There are several accounts not listed here in these newer screencaps I suspect to be bots.'' ''Previous banned viewbotter EggYSC2.'' Full of opinion and jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence. He even states some of these accounts might be 'innocent' but still lists them. Listing a new account of this Heroes of the Storm Eggy guy playing poker just because he previously used viewbots for Heroes and has apparently apologised for his behaviour and had his old account banned. Would be pretty stupid to start up viewbotting again then, but he's listed again as a 'suspected viewbotter' with absolutely no proof that he is doing so on his new account. Basically, if you want to bring hard evidence on people, don't go throwing in ANYTHING that you personally suspect as a viewbotter, because it dilutes your entire argument (or at least it should). Pretty much like in a criminal court where certain charges cannot be proved, so only the ones that can be proved will be brought to ensure a conviction. That's a quite dogmatic interpretation. Outside of pure mathematics proof and certainty isn't a thing. The article is just being responsible, the evidence and approach seem very strong. As I say, innocent until proven guilty. Yes I'll admit there must be some form of viewbotting going on, but to punish streamers when they could be completely innocent seems a bit harsh when it is clear that they are probably eligible to be featured without the viewbots. Also the 'why would someone else pay for viewbotters' has come up, and it could be argued that a lot of people could. Who's to say Winter didn't become quite popular... Some people didn't like it and accused him of viewbotting, then became responsible for the viewbotting themselves? I've watched streams where people will just spam donate money to someone to troll, so to say that it's completely outside the realms of possibility would be wrong. Might seem far fetched, but only about as much as this whole 'evidence pointing to streamers doing it' is to me, since there is none. Why don't you respond to this: Show nested quote +The full evidence compilation has a text file that has my completed viewbotter research, along with snippits from my IRC chat log (as well as the log file itself) from Winter's channel as he was alledgely being DDOS'ed. Viewbots were leaving in a mass exodus. Why would viewbots be leaving when Winter's internet is failing? Could it be that it's his internet that is running said bots? This is not about accusing someone of a violent crime btw. If you like watching Winters stream than that's absolutely fine.
Yes it looks bad but its not 100% conclusive proof. Until Twitch decide to take action against said streamer, then the streamer is innocent until proven guilty.
|
On March 16 2015 21:04 Mallidon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 20:52 mostevil wrote:On March 16 2015 20:39 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:19 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 20:17 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 16:17 InDLegacy wrote:
Oh please. Let me point out what this is really all about. This is about TL trying to avoid any of this drama. There are trolls all over Twitch and Reddit looking to create drama anywhere and everywhere Winter is advertised, and TL doesn't want any of it. If you honestly expect any rational person to accept that you can't gauge if Winter meets your 100-150 viewer requirement, viewbots or not, then you are trying too hard to come up with excuses. You can already look up stats on his subs, being way over that amount (Over 600).
Avilo has had an obsessive attitude towards Winter for a long time now. The kind that borders stalking. This is why any mention of his name warrants a time out in Winter's chat. I looked through that reddit post. I saw the proof. I agree that there has undoubtedly been viewbots on Winter's channel. Yet some of those "suspicious" accounts Avilo cites follow typical stupid naming schemes people have been using for decades now. Really? We're to suspect xxCloudUchihaxxk because his name is dumb and he is only following Winter?
There is only one party that can determine if Winter is at fault here. That is Twitch. All Twitch has done thus far is work with Winter to take measures to stop his channel from getting viewbot traffic. They have in the past banned streamers for viewboting. Yet here they haven't. I'm sorry but you can't just point out "Twitch is doing nothing about it" like they are simply choosing not to.
For anyone else, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The evidence Avilo presented is not good enough to determine if Winter backed those bots.
All being said. Winter HAS helped the Sc2 community. His viewership is the only way SC2 hits the top streamed games list when there are no professional games being streamed. For TL to take a stance like this so publicly, I can only find it disrespectful. Sums my thoughts up pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty and the 'evidence' against Winter is pretty lightweight imo. Feels a little bit like TL has given in to the pitchfork crowd because they don't want the drama. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a bit sad Edit - Added sadface Please sum up the evidence for me, I'm curious Highlights for me: ''Most if not all of these should be connected to viewbotting. I apologize if an account has been listed that is innocent.'' ''NOTE: There are several accounts not listed here in these newer screencaps I suspect to be bots.'' ''Previous banned viewbotter EggYSC2.'' Full of opinion and jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence. He even states some of these accounts might be 'innocent' but still lists them. Listing a new account of this Heroes of the Storm Eggy guy playing poker just because he previously used viewbots for Heroes and has apparently apologised for his behaviour and had his old account banned. Would be pretty stupid to start up viewbotting again then, but he's listed again as a 'suspected viewbotter' with absolutely no proof that he is doing so on his new account. Basically, if you want to bring hard evidence on people, don't go throwing in ANYTHING that you personally suspect as a viewbotter, because it dilutes your entire argument (or at least it should). Pretty much like in a criminal court where certain charges cannot be proved, so only the ones that can be proved will be brought to ensure a conviction. That's a quite dogmatic interpretation. Outside of pure mathematics proof and certainty isn't a thing. The article is just being responsible, the evidence and approach seem very strong. As I say, innocent until proven guilty. Yes I'll admit there must be some form of viewbotting going on, but to punish streamers when they could be completely innocent seems a bit harsh when it is clear that they are probably eligible to be featured without the viewbots. Also the 'why would someone else pay for viewbotters' has come up, and it could be argued that a lot of people could. Who's to say Winter didn't become quite popular... Some people didn't like it and accused him of viewbotting, then became responsible for the viewbotting themselves? I've watched streams where people will just spam donate money to someone to troll, so to say that it's completely outside the realms of possibility would be wrong. Might seem far fetched, but only about as much as this whole 'evidence pointing to streamers doing it' is to me, since there is little to none.
TL.Net does not exist for the purpose of funnelling SC2 observers to people's twitch channels.
i prefer TL.Net to be really picky about who they feature this way it allows me to be very lazy in my selection of who to watch.
if TL.Net cut the # of featured streamers down to 1/10th of what it is right now i'd be totally cool with that.
if that means Winter never gets featured again i'm cool with that too.
|
On March 16 2015 21:09 Mallidon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:07 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 21:04 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:52 mostevil wrote:On March 16 2015 20:39 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 20:19 Penev wrote:On March 16 2015 20:17 Mallidon wrote:On March 16 2015 16:17 InDLegacy wrote:
Oh please. Let me point out what this is really all about. This is about TL trying to avoid any of this drama. There are trolls all over Twitch and Reddit looking to create drama anywhere and everywhere Winter is advertised, and TL doesn't want any of it. If you honestly expect any rational person to accept that you can't gauge if Winter meets your 100-150 viewer requirement, viewbots or not, then you are trying too hard to come up with excuses. You can already look up stats on his subs, being way over that amount (Over 600).
Avilo has had an obsessive attitude towards Winter for a long time now. The kind that borders stalking. This is why any mention of his name warrants a time out in Winter's chat. I looked through that reddit post. I saw the proof. I agree that there has undoubtedly been viewbots on Winter's channel. Yet some of those "suspicious" accounts Avilo cites follow typical stupid naming schemes people have been using for decades now. Really? We're to suspect xxCloudUchihaxxk because his name is dumb and he is only following Winter?
There is only one party that can determine if Winter is at fault here. That is Twitch. All Twitch has done thus far is work with Winter to take measures to stop his channel from getting viewbot traffic. They have in the past banned streamers for viewboting. Yet here they haven't. I'm sorry but you can't just point out "Twitch is doing nothing about it" like they are simply choosing not to.
For anyone else, the burden of proof is on the accuser. The evidence Avilo presented is not good enough to determine if Winter backed those bots.
All being said. Winter HAS helped the Sc2 community. His viewership is the only way SC2 hits the top streamed games list when there are no professional games being streamed. For TL to take a stance like this so publicly, I can only find it disrespectful. Sums my thoughts up pretty well. Innocent until proven guilty and the 'evidence' against Winter is pretty lightweight imo. Feels a little bit like TL has given in to the pitchfork crowd because they don't want the drama. Fair enough I suppose, but it's a bit sad Edit - Added sadface Please sum up the evidence for me, I'm curious Highlights for me: ''Most if not all of these should be connected to viewbotting. I apologize if an account has been listed that is innocent.'' ''NOTE: There are several accounts not listed here in these newer screencaps I suspect to be bots.'' ''Previous banned viewbotter EggYSC2.'' Full of opinion and jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence. He even states some of these accounts might be 'innocent' but still lists them. Listing a new account of this Heroes of the Storm Eggy guy playing poker just because he previously used viewbots for Heroes and has apparently apologised for his behaviour and had his old account banned. Would be pretty stupid to start up viewbotting again then, but he's listed again as a 'suspected viewbotter' with absolutely no proof that he is doing so on his new account. Basically, if you want to bring hard evidence on people, don't go throwing in ANYTHING that you personally suspect as a viewbotter, because it dilutes your entire argument (or at least it should). Pretty much like in a criminal court where certain charges cannot be proved, so only the ones that can be proved will be brought to ensure a conviction. That's a quite dogmatic interpretation. Outside of pure mathematics proof and certainty isn't a thing. The article is just being responsible, the evidence and approach seem very strong. As I say, innocent until proven guilty. Yes I'll admit there must be some form of viewbotting going on, but to punish streamers when they could be completely innocent seems a bit harsh when it is clear that they are probably eligible to be featured without the viewbots. Also the 'why would someone else pay for viewbotters' has come up, and it could be argued that a lot of people could. Who's to say Winter didn't become quite popular... Some people didn't like it and accused him of viewbotting, then became responsible for the viewbotting themselves? I've watched streams where people will just spam donate money to someone to troll, so to say that it's completely outside the realms of possibility would be wrong. Might seem far fetched, but only about as much as this whole 'evidence pointing to streamers doing it' is to me, since there is none. Why don't you respond to this: The full evidence compilation has a text file that has my completed viewbotter research, along with snippits from my IRC chat log (as well as the log file itself) from Winter's channel as he was alledgely being DDOS'ed. Viewbots were leaving in a mass exodus. Why would viewbots be leaving when Winter's internet is failing? Could it be that it's his internet that is running said bots? This is not about accusing someone of a violent crime btw. If you like watching Winters stream than that's absolutely fine. Yes it looks bad but its not 100% conclusive proof. Until Twitch decide to take action against said streamer, then the streamer is innocent until proven guilty.
No it's not, it's about reasonable doubt. I guess we differ on that department; For me it looks (way) bad enough, for you it apparently doesn't.
|
I don't watch streamers much, but I can only applaud any efforts to support a healthy e-sports community from the bottom up. That includes upholding your own rules when evidence is provided beyond reasonable doubt that they have been broken.
Good job.
|
Finally they caught Winter!! I've been accusing him during all this time.. I just knew it! There is no possible way that a guy like that becomes so popular so fast...
De-featuring him was definitely the right call
|
Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements:
It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards.
- Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs!
- what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature?
The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out.
Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar!
|
I liked the "general assholery" part xD
|
Another thing that'd be cool, is if you can give good/entertaining streamers with low viewer count a fix time trial feature, say a month or two, giving them a chance to build a viewerbase from TL with a high quality but not yet widely recognized stream. They know they have a limited time on TLs sidebar to build fame, so they'll be extra active and put in a lot of effort to produce high quality content.
Not sure exactly how to select who get the trials, but I'm sure you can come up with an interesting method.
|
On March 16 2015 21:26 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:
I liked the "general assholery" part xD
That's an objectively measurable requirement if I've ever seen one. 
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On March 16 2015 21:22 Cascade wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements: It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards. - Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs! - what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature? The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out. Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar!
Well of course we'd like to keep a little subjectivity. For example, a person that gives excellent commentary and plays at a high level will receive more leniency compared to someone who smurfs and acts like a clown all day. While the latter will also be considered, we prefer highlighting new informative streams over aimless fun ones. Of course if they have the viewership they still get featured.
A lot of it will be discretion of the staff. We won't knee-jerk to sudden rises or drops, but if we see that it is sustained we will act.
Players will stay in featured for the remainder of the season. Many of the streamers who are also in Challenger satisfy other requirements to keep them on the list. This rule is for the unknown players who don't have many viewers (say, 10 or 20) to get featured for their good work in WCS qualifying.
|
So the most solid evidence we have that winter actually viewbot himself is that his viewers drop when his internet fails and when this gets blown up?
Given the fact that someone can viewbot someone else, it isn't that crazy to think that someone can also control when to stop the viewbot.
I am also concerned how these viewbots work, can't it be ran by a script that is planted on his computer?
|
On March 16 2015 21:37 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:22 Cascade wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements: It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards. - Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs! - what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature? The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out. Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar! Well of course we'd like to keep a little subjectivity. For example, a person that gives excellent commentary and plays at a high level will receive more leniency compared to someone who smurfs and acts like a clown all day. While the latter will also be considered, we prefer highlighting new informative streams over aimless fun ones. Of course if they have the viewership they still get featured. A lot of it will be discretion of the staff. We won't knee-jerk to sudden rises or drops, but if we see that it is sustained we will act. Players will stay in featured for the remainder of the season. Many of the streamers who are also in Challenger satisfy other requirements to keep them on the list. This rule is for the unknown players who don't have many viewers (say, 10 or 20) to get featured for their good work in WCS qualifying.
Do you consider players who qualified for Challenger S1 but lost as Challenger League players until Challenger S2 or as players having been eliminated, thus not being featured? (or in other words, will someone like PtitDrogo still be featured?)
|
On March 16 2015 21:37 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:22 Cascade wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements: It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards. - Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs! - what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature? The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out. Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar! Well of course we'd like to keep a little subjectivity. For example, a person that gives excellent commentary and plays at a high level will receive more leniency compared to someone who smurfs and acts like a clown all day. While the latter will also be considered, we prefer highlighting new informative streams over aimless fun ones. Of course if they have the viewership they still get featured. A lot of it will be discretion of the staff. We won't knee-jerk to sudden rises or drops, but if we see that it is sustained we will act. Players will stay in featured for the remainder of the season. Many of the streamers who are also in Challenger satisfy other requirements to keep them on the list. This rule is for the unknown players who don't have many viewers (say, 10 or 20) to get featured for their good work in WCS qualifying.
Do you have any plans to feature streamers who specialize in less common game-modes, such as team games or FFA? Personally I think it would be really cool to have someone featured who plays mostly FFA games, or how about someone who mostly plays money-map games? I think that would be really awesome. Bring back memories of BW 3v3 BGH/Fastest Possible Map :D
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On March 16 2015 21:42 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:37 lichter wrote:On March 16 2015 21:22 Cascade wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements: It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards. - Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs! - what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature? The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out. Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar! Well of course we'd like to keep a little subjectivity. For example, a person that gives excellent commentary and plays at a high level will receive more leniency compared to someone who smurfs and acts like a clown all day. While the latter will also be considered, we prefer highlighting new informative streams over aimless fun ones. Of course if they have the viewership they still get featured. A lot of it will be discretion of the staff. We won't knee-jerk to sudden rises or drops, but if we see that it is sustained we will act. Players will stay in featured for the remainder of the season. Many of the streamers who are also in Challenger satisfy other requirements to keep them on the list. This rule is for the unknown players who don't have many viewers (say, 10 or 20) to get featured for their good work in WCS qualifying. Do you consider players who qualified for Challenger S1 but lost as Challenger League players until Challenger S2 or as players having been eliminated, thus not being featured? (or in other words, will someone like PtitDrogo still be featured?)
As long as they reach Challenger for that season, they will be featured for that season. We will start in season 2.
As you can imagine this is all done manually, so we won't be perfect in applying these rules instantly, but we'll do our best. Reminding us helps too :p
On March 16 2015 21:45 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:37 lichter wrote:On March 16 2015 21:22 Cascade wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements: It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards. - Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs! - what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature? The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out. Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar! Well of course we'd like to keep a little subjectivity. For example, a person that gives excellent commentary and plays at a high level will receive more leniency compared to someone who smurfs and acts like a clown all day. While the latter will also be considered, we prefer highlighting new informative streams over aimless fun ones. Of course if they have the viewership they still get featured. A lot of it will be discretion of the staff. We won't knee-jerk to sudden rises or drops, but if we see that it is sustained we will act. Players will stay in featured for the remainder of the season. Many of the streamers who are also in Challenger satisfy other requirements to keep them on the list. This rule is for the unknown players who don't have many viewers (say, 10 or 20) to get featured for their good work in WCS qualifying. Do you have any plans to feature streamers who specialize in less common game-modes, such as team games or FFA? Personally I think it would be really cool to have someone featured who plays mostly FFA games, or how about someone who mostly plays money-map games? I think that would be really awesome. Bring back memories of BW 3v3 BGH/Fastest Possible Map :D
The viewership just isn't there for other game modes unfortunately. So there's no reason to give those streamer's preferential treatment. I grew up playing BGH in BW so I'm definitely not against other game modes. But the numbers need to be there.
|
On March 16 2015 21:45 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 21:42 OtherWorld wrote:On March 16 2015 21:37 lichter wrote:On March 16 2015 21:22 Cascade wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the Winter discussion ( ), but I have a little comment on the requirements: It is great that you mostly have objective requirements that are easily measurable! (I am fine with some subjectivity in the requirements as well for the record.) In that vein though, you may want to be a bit more precise than "at least 100-150 constant viewers". Probably there will be plenty of streamers fighting on the edge of this requirement, so give them a clear well defined goal to work towards. - Is it at least 100 or at least 150? Is 125 enough or not? Pick one ffs! - what does "constant viewers" mean? More than half of the time? Is this measured by twitch? Is it the number when the TL mods happen to look? It may just be a matter of me being ignorant, and "constant viewer" is a well defined twitch thing, but I suspect it isn't. For how long do they have to keep the average up? If they get featured, how long are they allowed to drop how far below before de-feature? The other things is that maybe you should give a chance for people that drop out of challenged to re-qualify. Like, if they drop out and fail to get back in after X months, you are out. Looking forward to new skilled players in the feature bar! Well of course we'd like to keep a little subjectivity. For example, a person that gives excellent commentary and plays at a high level will receive more leniency compared to someone who smurfs and acts like a clown all day. While the latter will also be considered, we prefer highlighting new informative streams over aimless fun ones. Of course if they have the viewership they still get featured. A lot of it will be discretion of the staff. We won't knee-jerk to sudden rises or drops, but if we see that it is sustained we will act. Players will stay in featured for the remainder of the season. Many of the streamers who are also in Challenger satisfy other requirements to keep them on the list. This rule is for the unknown players who don't have many viewers (say, 10 or 20) to get featured for their good work in WCS qualifying. Do you consider players who qualified for Challenger S1 but lost as Challenger League players until Challenger S2 or as players having been eliminated, thus not being featured? (or in other words, will someone like PtitDrogo still be featured?) As long as they reach Challenger for that season, they will be featured for that season. We will start in season 2. As you can imagine this is all done manually, so we won't be perfect in applying these rules instantly, but we'll do our best. Reminding us helps too :p
Ok, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
