Jump to content


My thoughts on the Foch incident.......


  • Please log in to reply
112 replies to this topic

1mp0ster #81 Posted May 20 2017 - 13:47

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 39831 battles
  • 1,385
  • [NVRDY] NVRDY
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013
hey OP, NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT ANYTHING

haxmachine21 #82 Posted May 20 2017 - 13:54

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14941 battles
  • 1,502
  • [S_T_P] S_T_P
  • Member since:
    12-30-2014

View Post1mp0ster, on May 20 2017 - 06:47, said:

hey OP, NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT ANYTHING

 

Apparently you do.....you REPLIED.

Burnsider #83 Posted May 20 2017 - 13:56

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2599 battles
  • 42
  • [DHO] DHO
  • Member since:
    07-13-2015

View PostNightshield_, on May 20 2017 - 05:02, said:

 

Also WOT is owned by WG and if they believe language or comments are offensive while their game plays in the background they have some right to demand that it to be removed, just as if  Warner Brothers, Sony, Disney or any other proprietary owner of material would if someone was cursing and saying something which could be taken as highly offensive over their property on YouTube.

 

 

Yeah, you really don't understand Fair Use. 

 

The sad thing is, I really have no skin in this game. I don't really care about what WG did. But the amount of Internet cop on this forum really amazes me. "He said bad words! About kids! There have a RIGHT to demand it be taken down."

 

Or

 

"It's their property. They can do whatever they like. They can take down anyone's videos cause they own WoT."

 

Or

 

"I don't even care if it was legal or not. WG did the right thing."

 

These phrases boggle my mind. 



SMScannonfodder #84 Posted May 20 2017 - 14:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 24798 battles
  • 2,722
  • [B_I_A] B_I_A
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View PostHOTA_CHATON, on May 19 2017 - 12:28, said:

 

I really haven't seen any OP premiums, in this game, except the Type 59 and that is why they refuse to sell it again.  It was so OP, that it was not until you reached the T29 or IS that you had any hope of out gunning it

 

You must be kidding right? If you're not I suggest you understand weak spots, Type was never OP, what made it OP was people doing wolf packs with them. Take any same tank and same stats and wolf pack them, and they become almost unstoppable.

782GearUSMC #85 Posted May 20 2017 - 15:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 28255 battles
  • 3,693
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013
The posting of the Foch incident has called the WG shills to arms.

Mainerd #86 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:10

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16285 battles
  • 294
  • [DRB] DRB
  • Member since:
    09-04-2014

View PostBurnsider, on May 20 2017 - 06:56, said:

Yeah, you really don't understand Fair Use. 

 

The sad thing is, I really have no skin in this game. I don't really care about what WG did. But the amount of Internet cop on this forum really amazes me. "He said bad words! About kids! There have a RIGHT to demand it be taken down."

 

Or

 

"It's their property. They can do whatever they like. They can take down anyone's videos cause they own WoT."

 

Or

 

"I don't even care if it was legal or not. WG did the right thing."

 

These phrases boggle my mind. 

 

Boggles my mind that you think Wargaming has no right to file the complaint and let the courts decide.

ShankYou #87 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:17

    Private

  • Players
  • 7853 battles
  • 3
  • [RDB] RDB
  • Member since:
    03-01-2011

All this uproar makes me glad I can't play on the EU servers.... what a bunch of crybaby snowflakes over there.

 

THIS IS A GAME.....

 

Sheesh.



Deathstar_Commander #88 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 51703 battles
  • 2,531
  • [YODA] YODA
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostBurglarOfBanff_ff, on May 20 2017 - 13:44, said:

WG is obviously not without it's problems, but I watched the original Foch video and as part of his attack on WG he used the names of WG employees and their children.  That's over the line. 

 

No he didnt, that was the circon video, the guy who got to keep his CC status.

Urabouttudie #89 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 21913 battles
  • 2,073
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

Foch who??

 

<clicks battle>

 



JA_Pinkerton #90 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 33023 battles
  • 4,498
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

View PostMainerd, on May 20 2017 - 10:10, said:

 

Boggles my mind that you think Wargaming has no right to file the complaint and let the courts decide.

 

It boggles the mind that you think any lawyer at YouTube, let alone a full on judge, will ever look at a take down request.

Pipinghot #91 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,302
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostMainerd, on May 20 2017 - 10:10, said:

View PostBurnsider, on May 20 2017 - 06:56, said:

Yeah, you really don't understand Fair Use. 

 

The sad thing is, I really have no skin in this game. I don't really care about what WG did. But the amount of Internet cop on this forum really amazes me. "He said bad words! About kids! There have a RIGHT to demand it be taken down."

 

Or

 

"It's their property. They can do whatever they like. They can take down anyone's videos cause they own WoT."

 

Or

 

"I don't even care if it was legal or not. WG did the right thing."

 

These phrases boggle my mind. 

Boggles my mind that you think Wargaming has no right to file the complaint and let the courts decide.

And it boggles more reasonable and knowledgeable minds that you don't understand that threatening copyright infringement over a negative review has long been established as an abusive strong-arm tactic and is almost universally frowned on by courts. The very idea of filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against a critic is considered a frivolous lawsuit by its very nature.



ledhed14 #92 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 14487 battles
  • 6,525
  • [_SOA_] _SOA_
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011

I watched the Video in question . He has a SPECIAL status and in my opinion he abused his rights and was censored by wargaming . He could have said the same thing and made the same points by NOT being abusive . He chose not to , WG got tired of his act and did something heavy handed , also in my opinion .

 This is a business and the whole PUBLIC airing of the dirty laundry is a loss for EVERYONE involved .

 Could have been handled better on all sides .



_cthulhu_ #93 Posted May 20 2017 - 16:51

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46598 battles
  • 1,368
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011

View PostBurglarOfBanff_ff, on May 21 2017 - 00:44, said:

WG is obviously not without it's problems, but I watched the original Foch video and as part of his attack on WG he used the names of WG employees and their children.  That's over the line. 

 

The original video is still around, no names were mentioned at all.

 

 



Vergeltungswaffen #94 Posted May 20 2017 - 19:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 27971 battles
  • 107
  • [WLSON] WLSON
  • Member since:
    03-09-2012

View Postwarco3, on May 19 2017 - 13:18, said:

OP, do you realize WG is a company and not an actual person, right? A company does not get put on edge. A company is SUPPOSED to deal with criticism, especially VALID criticism of their products. And again, the issue was not the CC status removal or the tank itself. It is Wargaming and they need to fix this or there WILL be an exodus of players. Mark my words.

 

^ This.

 

Though the part at the end is wishful thinking lol. People aren't going to leave over this issue. But there will be less purchases for a little bit and the mood surrounding the game will be murky. It's all just more bad rep for WG and TBH they really need less bad rep.



I_QQ_4_U #95 Posted May 20 2017 - 19:23

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22524 battles
  • 6,765
  • Member since:
    10-17-2016

View Post_cthulhu_, on May 20 2017 - 16:51, said:

 

The original video is still around, no names were mentioned at all.

 

 

 

Someone else said that but it was an offhand comment in a stream about a map he didn't like being drawn by someone at WG's kid which to be honest doesn't seem to be anything to get upset about, he didn't insult the kid he was just saying he thought the map was not very well done. ie, drawn by a kid. The video in question was just over top immaturity. If you're making a living off someone/thing you might want to temper you criticisms with some maturity.

Edited by I_QQ_4_U, May 20 2017 - 19:24.


Mainerd #96 Posted May 20 2017 - 19:54

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16285 battles
  • 294
  • [DRB] DRB
  • Member since:
    09-04-2014

View PostPipinghot, on May 20 2017 - 09:31, said:

And it boggles more reasonable and knowledgeable minds that you don't understand that threatening copyright infringement over a negative review has long been established as an abusive strong-arm tactic and is almost universally frowned on by courts. The very idea of filing a copyright infringement lawsuit against a critic is considered a frivolous lawsuit by its very nature.

 

 

So I guess WG has no rights and just needs to let him profit off their material while he screams F.U. at them since you have already tried the case. I think this is more of a case of Foch being unreasonable. Let's see nearly the same issue with Circon but handled quickly and even reinstating him as a CC. Clearly WG is an unreasonable evil corporate entity (sarcasm off).



jpli #97 Posted May 20 2017 - 22:09

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 45532 battles
  • 605
  • [ALL] ALL
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Posthaxmachine21, on May 19 2017 - 13:04, said:

 We've put Wargaming on edge. All this past year, they have changed MM (requested by the players), re-worked/nerfed artillery (MAJORLY requested by players), added in Tier 10 LTs (also requested....and yes, they did nerf them...I know....), and rebalanced some of the more OP light tanks as well, along with buffing tanks that really needed help. And what have we done?

We've ******* and moaned about it, complaining that they did it all wrong and that they need to redo it. 

I've simply decided that I'm going to step back and let Wargaming do what they want to do. It's time to give them some space. Every CC on the NA server still seems pretty content with what's going on, so WGNA is doing something right that the people across the pond still can't grasp.

 

Hi,

You're somewhat right but also wrong.

They got a lot of complains, this is true, do they deserve all of them, definitively not because I think they want to improve.

On the other side, I can't remember someone asking about tanks like the Patriot/Liberte/Defender and now Chrysler but 

I see plenty of request about new maps, did you see one (I mean no winter/etc. versions) ?

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

 

 

 



earthman34 #98 Posted May 21 2017 - 00:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 49569 battles
  • 3,235
  • Member since:
    07-17-2013

View Postjpli, on May 20 2017 - 15:09, said:

 

Hi,

You're somewhat right but also wrong.

They got a lot of complains, this is true, do they deserve all of them, definitively not because I think they want to improve.

On the other side, I can't remember someone asking about tanks like the Patriot/Liberte/Defender and now Chrysler but 

I see plenty of request about new maps, did you see one (I mean no winter/etc. versions) ?

 

Cheers.

 

You realize that the sole purpose of premium tanks is to generate revenue for WG, not just once but over and over again, since you need to buy a premium account and additional gold to feed their appetite for premium ammo, and to unlock at that free experience to buy the next lemon up the ladder. Fair enough, but do the premium vehicles need to be better than the ones you spend months earning in the tree? They never used to be... or they were one trick ponies at best. The Chrysler GK and Patriot are much better vehicles than the US tier 8 tree vehicle, the T32. The Skorpion is a better TD than anything in the German tree at tier 8...it runs circles around the Ferdinand and Rhoomba, and beats the JPanther II because it has a turret. The M45 49 is a much tougher tank than the French tree tier 8. The Lowe is arguably better than anything in the German tree at tier 8...but some might disagree. The Defender is just absurd, it's literally better than the tier 9 Russian heavies. Wargaming is trolling us with these vehicles, making them so good that people feel forced to buy them to keep up, or be relegated to losing a lot more, and being force to spam gold to penetrate these things. I have to load gold in the VK 100 to have any chance of penetrating any of these vehicles frontally, while they can all penetrate me. Foch was 100% right, the Chrysler tank is nothing but a pure troll, you need gold to pen it, and it needs gold to pen you...it's an IS-6 with much better armor. Wargaming deserves to be criticized for their blatant pay-to-win money grabs. Foch was right.



Burnsider #99 Posted May 21 2017 - 01:07

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 2599 battles
  • 42
  • [DHO] DHO
  • Member since:
    07-13-2015

View PostMainerd, on May 20 2017 - 19:54, said:

 

 

So I guess WG has no rights and just needs to let him profit off their material while he screams F.U. at them since you have already tried the case. I think this is more of a case of Foch being unreasonable. Let's see nearly the same issue with Circon but handled quickly and even reinstating him as a CC. Clearly WG is an unreasonable evil corporate entity (sarcasm off).

WG absolutely has rights, but so does SirFoch. And, in the realm of Fair Use, the law is clear. In this case, the law not just favors SirFoch, it completely supports him. WG has lawyers. They know this. So, to threaten action like this means they know they would lose if it went to court, but they also know, that it would cost SirFoch time and money he may not have to fight it. 

 

Clearly, WG is (in this case) acting like an unreasonable evil corporate entity. And that's not sarcasm. That's slight hyperbole, but that's why people are upset. 



Mainerd #100 Posted May 21 2017 - 01:34

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 16285 battles
  • 294
  • [DRB] DRB
  • Member since:
    09-04-2014

View PostBurnsider, on May 20 2017 - 18:07, said:

WG absolutely has rights, but so does SirFoch. And, in the realm of Fair Use, the law is clear. In this case, the law not just favors SirFoch, it completely supports him. WG has lawyers. They know this. So, to threaten action like this means they know they would lose if it went to court, but they also know, that it would cost SirFoch time and money he may not have to fight it. 

 

Clearly, WG is (in this case) acting like an unreasonable evil corporate entity. And that's not sarcasm. That's slight hyperbole, but that's why people are upset. 

 

Then Foch should take them to court and sue for damages. Maybe he can be awarded $1 just like the USFL.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users