Why wargaming did the right thing

[mcgibe]

This will probably be a hot take to some and not to others. It's absolutely fine if you agree or disagree.

That being said, in my opinion, flamu deserved his ban. There are constant examples of statshaming and encouraging it on stream, toxicity and anger to other players, and overall negative attitudes coupled with some bad takes on ships and questionable at best tweets that have left me believing that he deserved his ban. As @Hapa_Fodder stated in another recent post, "Despite our willingness to keep working with him after those transgressions, we continued to receive reports about his behavior towards players and felt that the situation was no longer tolerable."

I will admit I definitely have my biases here, but when you call someone with a different opinion (even if it's completely wrong) an R on stream, that probably tells us all we need to know at that point.

 

Finally, I don't wish any ill will to flamu as a person. I do hope that he finds another game that makes him happy. I just have a huge issue with the internet and CC personality that he was.

[Rocketpacman]

That's fine to believe. Just don't try and sell me on the idea that that was what actually got WG to remove Flamu. They didn't (and don't) really care or they wouldn't have let it go on this long. 

There are two real possibilities for why Flamu got removed. WG felt his criticism of them crossed a line (they know this reason, even if correct, will be received much less than sympathetically than dropping him for toxicity towards other players) or they felt he was hurting the brand more than helping it at this point. It's one of those (or both) but it had nothing to do with his toxicity. That was just a useful cover. 

[Nevermore135]

2 minutes ago, Rocketpacman said:

There are two real possibilities for why Flamu got removed. WG felt his criticism of them crossed a line (they know this reason, even if correct, will be received much less than sympathetically than dropping him for toxicity towards other players) or they felt he was hurting the brand more than helping it at this point. It's one of those (or both) but it had nothing to do with his toxicity. That was just a useful cover. 

And what if they felt that his toxicity was hurting their brand?

[Rocketpacman]

Just now, Nevermore135 said:

And what if they felt that his toxicity was hurting their brand?

Why wasn't it hurting it one year ago or two years ago? That's my whole point. It has nothing to do with the toxicity itself simply whether WG felt Flamu, and the "toxicity" associated with him, was helping more than it hurt. If it was helping WG Flamu could be as toxic as he wants and it wouldn't be enough to get him booted. 

[Ensign_Cthulhu]

7 minutes ago, Rocketpacman said:

or they felt he was hurting the brand more than helping it at this point. It's one of those (or both) but it had nothing to do with his toxicity.

IF correct, it has everything to do with his toxicity, because the way in which he criticised WG on stream was constantly toxic.

[black_hull4]

Flamu: The line is behind me, I've crossed it again, oh look: the boss has lost it again. Aw, such a hard life better run off to your wife, I hear the boss is in Cyprus aga-

Victor Kislyi: I'm not

Flamu: O_o

Wargaming: YEET

[Rouxi]

Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

IF correct, it has everything to do with his toxicity, because the way in which he criticised WG on stream was constantly toxic.

The way he criticized everyone and everything on stream was highly toxic. Flamu is single-handedly the reason why we need to be able to block quick chat commands and map pings.

[anonym_j09pJOQbXcQH]

Toxicity is a problem in gaming overall. If this player was toxic enough to become a literal cancer then it doesnt surprise me when those in power and have the ability to do so snipped it out.

I essentially found a solution to toxicity and that is disabling game chat. They say it breaks battle communication etc. Sure it does. However it does not improve a toxic environment.

I see that my blacklisting of Tkers and other problems players have finally gotten pretty bloated again. Every other month it gets big enough to stutter the game world when new names are added.

[warheart1992]

Flamu has been doing streams/uploading videos for the past 5 years, and I almost always remember him being that salty and "toxic". There's leniency and then there's that. As the above poster said, why not cancel the CC agreement a year or two ago? Hell, it would have been even more convenient at the beginning of the CV rework.  As I said on the other thread, there were seven stat shaming cases on Flamu and a tweet that were cited as the reasons for splitting off. Said tweet is just concern over KoTS and the potential influx of CVs under WG management, pretty tame. Also in my opinion there's a large difference between stream Flamu and Youtube Flamu, as in a set format Flamu's videos are pretty useful as guides.

Personally I don't like Flamu, mostly because there's a limit to my daily salt intake and he cries wolf at almost every available opportunity. The split between him and WG mostly profits him as he can use the drama, have an excuse to differentiate his content and say whatever he wants.

[Nevermore135]

6 minutes ago, Rocketpacman said:

Why wasn't it hurting it one year ago or two years ago? That's my whole point. It has nothing to do with the toxicity itself simply whether WG felt Flamu, and the "toxicity" associated with him, was helping more than it hurt. If it was helping WG Flamu could be as toxic as he wants and it wouldn't be enough to get him booted. 

He has been warned and sanctioned multiple times. He has clearly shown that he has no desire to change his behavior, so WG finally had enough. I’m certain that the only reason he was given as many chances was because he is so popular, but there comes a point where WG had to draw the line.

You can’t forget that CCs represent the company by their affiliation. The higher ups at WG finally decided that he wasn’t going to change and they didn’t want their brand associated with his brand of toxicity. 

[anonym_j09pJOQbXcQH]

1 minute ago, Rouxi said:

The way he criticized everyone and everything on stream was highly toxic. Flamu is single-handedly the reason why we need to be able to block quick chat commands and map pings.

Map pinging gets reported as abuse of chat and the tac map minimized to nothing. They can ping all they want to now.

The chat commands? Well there are no way to block those. And its a problem. That also gets the spamming player blacklisted. In extreme situations I would just leave the game itself and go away for a few hours while the auto ban times out against me for doing so. Last I checked this is a free country and we are not imprisoned in some kind of toxic situation in game.

[SystemRename_1000614738]

[Ensign_Cthulhu]

7 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Flamu has been doing streams/uploading videos for the past 5 years, and I almost always remember him being that salty and "toxic".

We can agree to disagree, but my perception is that he's become much worse over the last year or two. I used to be able to watch him for hours at a time; now I don't know the last time I was able to stay in his stream for more than a few minutes. 

8 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Also in my opinion there's a large difference between stream Flamu and Youtube Flamu, as in a set format Flamu's videos are pretty useful as guides.

This is very true. His YT content is both helpful and worth watching, and it's as if he's a different man there.

[Jackson_Gunnery]

The CC program is not to be taken too seriously.  

[Navalpride33]

I am just pointing out... If WG is going to "enforce" the CC rules and TOS equally... Then, more heads are going to roll this week...

Flamu was not the only figure head for toxicity... Wait and see.

[mcgibe]

19 minutes ago, Rocketpacman said:

That's fine to believe. Just don't try and sell me on the idea that that was what actually got WG to remove Flamu. They didn't (and don't) really care or they wouldn't have let it go on this long. 

There are two real possibilities for why Flamu got removed. WG felt his criticism of them crossed a line (they know this reason, even if correct, will be received much less than sympathetically than dropping him for toxicity towards other players) or they felt he was hurting the brand more than helping it at this point. It's one of those (or both) but it had nothing to do with his toxicity. That was just a useful cover. 

I don't want to force you to change your mind. That's not the way people change opinions. So I'll just leave you with some of the facts:

Flamu has stated that he has been warned before because of his behavior. He wants people to think that this was a completely random event, but his toxic behavior, statshaming, questionable tweets (although the one he stated he was removed for wasn't that bad in all honesty), and his opinion to others who have different opinions (Gibbons and what he said to him). All of this was probably what led to wargaming making in my mind, the right decision to remove him from a program that he was very much not meant for.

I think going after Gibbons as soon as he was removed shows his true colors.

[Retnav54]

Honestly, WGAS?

And I don't think Flamu does either TBH.

Heard more than one former CC over the past two years, not only express relief over being kicked/leaving the program, but also say it had become more of a hindrance than a help to their channel.

And I have far more important things in my life than worrying about WG and WoWS drama - like if there's any toilet paper left on the roll, when I go into the bathroom to take my morning movement.

 

[SystemRename_1000614738]

Just now, mcgibe said:

the right decision to remove him from a program that he was very much not meant for.

You realize the purpose of the CC program is to buy off prominent streamers and youtubers?  You give them something - but it comes with conditions, that they "behave".  Flamu was one of the first CCs, and in WoT many of the first CCs were the most prominent critics.

[mcgibe]

3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I am just pointing out... If WG is going to "enforce" the CC rules and TOS equally... Then, more heads are going to roll this week...

Flamu was not the only figure head for toxicity... Wait and see.

I'm not sure who else even comes close to flamu's toxic behavior, but if I do start to see people like Aeroon or flambass being removed for "bad tweets" that's when I would call them out

Flamu had it coming

[LastRemnant]

If work with someone they tell you not to do something and you keep doing it and they even give you the courtesy to change still keep acting like a pleb that's on you  Can't blame wargaming if flamu wants to tempt fate and gets remove 

[Rocketpacman]

26 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

He has been warned and sanctioned multiple times. He has clearly shown that he has no desire to change his behavior, so WG finally had enough. I’m certain that the only reason he was given as many chances was because he is so popular, but there comes a point where WG had to draw the line.

You can’t forget that CCs represent the company by their affiliation. The higher ups at WG finally decided that he wasn’t going to change and they didn’t want their brand associated with his brand of toxicity. 

But again apparently they wanted or were at least willing to tolerate having their brand associated with Flamu's brand of toxicity a year ago. And two years ago. And three years ago. And so on. What changed? Flamu sure didn't.

But yeah I guess once you hit that 4 year or 5 mark (or whatever it was) that you use up all of your chances and have to be removed and totally not for reasons that are unrelated to Flamu's toxicity towards other players. 

I just don't see the need to give companies cover like this. Flamu didn't get removed because of his actions towards other players he got removed either because WG felt he crossed a line with them or because WG felt keeping him as a CC hurt their game's profitability more than it helped it. 

31 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

IF correct, it has everything to do with his toxicity, because the way in which he criticised WG on stream was constantly toxic.

I should have specified "it had nothing to do with his toxicity towards other players." Absolutely it could've been because WG felt he was getting too toxic in his criticism of them. 

[Chain_shot]

That's too bad he got booted he was one of the better streamers out there. He at least had the balls to speak truth to power. As always the chicken hawks shot the messenger when someone comes to causing turbulence to their paradigm.

 

[Torenico]

Honestly? There is no such thing as bad publicity. Fl*mu will try to capitalize on this, a week after this petty incident nobody will even remember it, he'll go back to stat shaming others, calling other people "R*[edited]" (Him being an ableist a-hole, what a surprise!), promoting toxicity among this rather calm community and upload clickbait videos but with a few more subscribers.

[Itsj_p]

The fact that flamu constantly violated the CC rules and thought he could get away with it, tells you everything, he says so many bad things about the game yet he still plays it and he could have left the CC program if you felt strongly about the things he said.

[PotatoMD]

Actually I think he's mellowed out when it comes to statshaming compared to his earlier days. 

But he's been increasingly critical of WG's decisions since the CV rework, and honestly, I don't blame him. That's where they drew the line. 

Others are correct, WG removing him from the CC program for statshaming is just a cover