Isn't his major demographic like 8-14 year olds?
This makes no sense whatsoever. Just because YouTube didn't ban Logan Paul for filming a hanged corpse doesn't mean that Epic shouldn't have banned Jarvis. It just means YouTube should have banned Logan Paul. You can't take the fact that one company didn't do enough against one content creator as a justification as to why you think another company is in the wrong for actually doing something against a content creator.Blevins did concede that cheating and recording it was silly but argued that if Logan Paul didn’t get penalised for filming a hanged corpse, then Faze Jarvis should also not get penalised. “Logan Paul literally filmed someone hanging in a forest and his channel didn’t get banned and he’s been perfectly fine,” Blevins said.
“In that aspect, he was a YouTuber, a big one, and he didn’t get banned. YouTube decided that he was big enough to not get banned.”
fuck ninja. entitled assSo in the past few days a content creator Faze Jarvis got banned permanent from Fortnite due to cheating with aimbots and ninja commented on the topic.
He states the following
Sorry I think this mentality is wrong. You think you are above everybody else since your known. Doesn't matter it should be fair treatment for everybody.
Fortnite star Ninja says bans shouldn't apply to "content creators" like Faze Jarvis - Green Man Gaming NewsroomYesterday we reported on Faze Jarvis, a popular Fortnite streamer, receiving a permanent ban from the game after releasing videos showing him using cheatwww.greenmangaming.com
where did he say “he should be excluded” or “shouldn’t be banned” lol? That is my only point here. He said “it’s different” because itHe's stating average people get banned on no poor then but then flips it and says but Jarvis is different. Why should he be excluded? Oh he's 17, nope not a good enough excuse at that age you should know what's right and wrong. Every game has an agreement you must accept before playing and if you cheat you are held accountable. Even at 17 you make dumb choices but they still have consequences and it's a life lesson for him.
And this is a perfect example of not answering a question and instead going around it. Well done. It's too bad you can't actually spend the time and discuss. Ah well. You got your out though, congrats.
He has a shitty opinion on a topic that needs to be discussed further as the streaming community gets bigger.
The premise of your question was flawed, so what is there to discuss?
His numbers are irrelevant at this point. Being on Mixer accomplished 2 things for Ninja.
it's a pretty vital part of the job when you think about it. you'd practically be taking food from their children's mouths if you force them to not be slur-slinging nazis
Your original response which started this dialog stated that the quoted information in the OP and title were misrepresenting what he said. So to me, this means you simply took what was said in a different way from what myself and others took. I simply asked you to clarify if what he said was in fact true. It took you 3 responses to finally confirm this and it's because you don't feel it's accurate. I don't have a problem with that. But to say the actual quote is misrepresenting him, I don't agree with at all. It's like a 'well that's not what he meant' excuse and that doesn't jive with me.The premise of your question was flawed, so what is there to discuss?
Is the quote correct? Yes. Did the thread title misrepresent the quote? Yes. Did you misread what the quote said? Also yes.
Now let me ask you a question: look at the text in thumbnail of the video. Look at the video title. Look at the thread title. Reread the quoted text. Now, after all that can you tell me where he actually said the kid shouldn’t be banned?
Watch the video, one of the first things he says is that the kid should have been banned (he did disagree with a permanent ban, however). There is not much discussion to be had if the premise of the discussion is flawed.
So, if you want to have a discussion about what he actually said then I am all for it.
And again, for clarity: I don’t agree with him. I think all cheaters regardless of context deserve a permanent ban.
There are exceptions to every rule but your analogy to some of these people like Polanski made me laugh at the absurdity of it all.Honestly it's his off the cuff take, taken from his stream while he's playing, and it's chopped up and probably has some bits removed. If he was sitting down with someone thinking about it he'd probably have a much better explanation of why he believes it - which seems to center around permanent ban being everyone - streamer, publisher, streaming service, game... And in that sense, he's right - a permanent ban from a game he's popular in is obviously bad for him, but it's also got a knock-on effect of lower visibility for the game, and whatever that means. If he starts streaming Apex Legends instead - assuming he's smart enough to not aimbot that game - then that's a pretty big chunk of viewers who are watching that instead.
If it was malicious, then ok - but it doesn't seem like it had that kind of intent to it. So give him a six month or a year ban, which is more than long enough to stop random jackasses from trying it.
People compare this to having regular jobs, but it's not - compare it to sports or entertainment. Pro athletes who get caught using PED don't get a lifetime ban immediately. Actors who get caught up in a scandal may face blacklisting from studios, like Keanu Reeves was, but it doesn't last forever. Most of the time they roll right through it - like Robert Downey Junior did.
Roman Polanski fled the country to avoid statutory rape charges...and still got work.
Unfortunately that's not the case. A lot of streamers are stuck doing a single game because the moment they change they lose their audience. It's why you see a lot of streamers get super burnt out because they have to play the same fucking game over and over. It isn't until they reach some point of success they can attempt to hop games.