The Energon Pub

megatronus wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:It's not news that they get stuff for free. We already knew that. X is just clutching at straws and being very vocal about it. Well, to people who can see his posts anyhow.

Earlier in the thread, weren't you one of the guys who said I had no proof the reviewers were getting free stuff ?

There's your proof.

Your argument is that reviewers essentially have a corrupt conflict of interest where they won't give negative toy reviews for fear of having their sponsorship compensation, whatever that may constitute, pulled.

But that argument is only served if free toys come from retailers, which remains unproved. And even if you do prove this in this instance, you would then have to prove that this is an industry norm. AND THEN you would have to prove that where it is true that reviewers receive free toys from retailers (because it may just be some and not others) that the conflict of interest is corrupting, which has an even higher burden of proof.

So, yea... Gauntlet is looking for proof reviewers get "free stuff" --- from retailers. Also, reviewers plural, as in more than one. Right now, you've proven that TJ got a free production sample from somewhere. Just like you proved Peaugh got some free production samples from somewhere. But neither of those facts support your core argument, so.

Not quite. I never said I was looking for proof that they get "free stuff". We all already knew they were getting "free stuff". I asserted that wasn't the primary motivation. I said it's likely they were paid money.

1) I'm asserting they get free stuff sometimes. Not all the time. That free stuff is a bonus that they maybe have to follow up on.
2) But, more importantly I'm asserting that it doesn't matter. That getting product for free does not change the overall quality of the review. That it does not make the reviewer dishonest. X keeps on picking on Peaugh, but he fumbles quite a bit when he gave a negative review to a 3rd party product he got for free (Crazy Devy wings) and Universe Galvy (a pre-sponsored review) shows his tone to have remained consistent (consistently annoying to X and others perhaps, but consistent nonetheless).

It's easy to prove the system is broke.

I asked for proof that multiple reviewers have consistently given positive reviews to toys that most consider bad. That goes beyond personal taste and ventures into dishonesty. You do this by posting multiple reviews by multiple reviewers. There can be no one smoking gun.

Anyhow, I blocked X when it was very, very clear he had a near pathological hatred of "corporate" people to the point where he's just blind to any points against his argument and just attacked reviewers personally. Even after he finds a sponsored reviewer he likes - disproving his claim that the system is broken - he still can't seem to see that his worries are exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

X just doesn't get the argument. He either doesn't understand the words I'm using or he's obstinate to the point where he can't concede that maybe - just maybe - his concerns are exaggerated. His points include not being able to see a reviewer's face, the use of gimmicks, posting non TF reviews, posting reviews that don't use language he'd like ... none of these points matters yet he clings to each one as if it's the cornerstone to the entire argument. I asked for a few reviews that show me the system is broke and he bends over backwards to do anything but demonstrate his point. He gives straw man after straw man, sets the bar higher and higher for each proof.

X is just a nut when it comes to this point. On other things he has points to make, but on this one he's just nutty. It's easy to prove the system is broke. Show me a bunch of sunny reviews for terrible toys by multiple sponsored reviewers. This would go beyond personal taste. I must have said this twenty times, but for some reason he just doesn't get it. There is no one smoking gun. X likes **** Impossible Toys! He said he'd recommend them to anyone! He should know that! He should know that sometimes people have unpopular opinions. He should know that better than anyone! Somehow he doesn't apply that knowledge here. His comments on the Bruticus upgrades convinced me that he'll cling to any straw to make dishonest points on reviewers. He convinced me that he has a personal dislike of sponsored reviewers; that this is a personal thing for him.

But there's no point in showing me personally anything now. X's use of consistent straw man arguments have totally convinced me that there is no problem. If there were a problem he'd be able to find misleading reviews easily instead of using every trick in the book other than addressing my points directly. Now I'm not interested in hearing his nutty theories. I'm responding now because it looks like he never even understood what I was saying to him. I mean **** wow. Going around in circles and he doesn't even **** understand a word I'm typing. It's anything but the facts with that guy. Eventually I'll unblock the guy, but as far as I'm concerned he's wearing a tin foil hat and holing up a cardboard sign about the end times when it comes to toy reviews.

tldr: It doesn't matter if a reviewer gets a $400+ toy for free. It only matters if it makes a bunch (not just one or two) of reviewers give bad reviews (not just one or two). Also, X has frustrated me. Hope I got that across.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:tldr: It doesn't matter if a reviewer gets a $400+ toy for free. It only matters if it makes a bunch (not just one or two) of reviewers give bad reviews (not just one or two). Also, X has frustrated me. Hope I got that across.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

I'm just a sucker for endless arguing.

megatronus wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:tldr: It doesn't matter if a reviewer gets a $400+ toy for free. It only matters if it makes a bunch (not just one or two) of reviewers give bad reviews (not just one or two). Also, X has frustrated me. Hope I got that across.

I think we're pretty much in agreement here.

I'm just a sucker for endless arguing.

I used to be the same, but after years of it I know when to quit. I just wanted to make my point clear.

Being sponsored means you're paid. That's the literal definition. Proving they're being paid proves ... what? Nothing. X is proclaiming victory after proving what we already know. After all that arguing he doesn't even understand my point. It's not just that he disagrees, he doesn't even understand it.

(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

megatronus wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:It's not news that they get stuff for free. We already knew that. X is just clutching at straws and being very vocal about it. Well, to people who can see his posts anyhow.

Earlier in the thread, weren't you one of the guys who said I had no proof the reviewers were getting free stuff ?

There's your proof.

Your argument is that reviewers essentially have a corrupt conflict of interest where they won't give negative toy reviews for fear of having their sponsorship compensation, whatever that may constitute, pulled.

But that argument is only served if free toys come from retailers, which remains unproved. And even if you do prove this in this instance, you would then have to prove that this is an industry norm. AND THEN you would have to prove that where it is true that reviewers receive free toys from retailers (because it may just be some and not others) that the conflict of interest is corrupting, which has an even higher burden of proof.

So, yea... Gauntlet is looking for proof reviewers get "free stuff" --- from retailers. Also, reviewers plural, as in more than one. Right now, you've proven that TJ got a free production sample from somewhere. Just like you proved Peaugh got some free production samples from somewhere. But neither of those facts support your core argument, so.

Not quite. I never said I was looking for proof that they get "free stuff". We all already knew they were getting "free stuff". I asserted that wasn't the primary motivation. I said it's likely they were paid money.

1) I'm asserting they get free stuff sometimes. Not all the time. That free stuff is a bonus that they maybe have to follow up on.
2) But, more importantly I'm asserting that it doesn't matter. That getting product for free does not change the overall quality of the review. That it does not make the reviewer dishonest. X keeps on picking on Peaugh, but he fumbles quite a bit when he gave a negative review to a 3rd party product he got for free (Crazy Devy wings) and Universe Galvy (a pre-sponsored review) shows his tone to have remained consistent (consistently annoying to X and others perhaps, but consistent nonetheless).

It's easy to prove the system is broke.

I asked for proof that multiple reviewers have consistently given positive reviews to toys that most consider bad. That goes beyond personal taste and ventures into dishonesty. You do this by posting multiple reviews by multiple reviewers. There can be no one smoking gun.

Anyhow, I blocked X when it was very, very clear he had a near pathological hatred of "corporate" people to the point where he's just blind to any points against his argument and just attacked reviewers personally. Even after he finds a sponsored reviewer he likes - disproving his claim that the system is broken - he still can't seem to see that his worries are exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

X just doesn't get the argument. He either doesn't understand the words I'm using or he's obstinate to the point where he can't concede that maybe - just maybe - his concerns are exaggerated. His points include not being able to see a reviewer's face, the use of gimmicks, posting non TF reviews, posting reviews that don't use language he'd like ... none of these points matters yet he clings to each one as if it's the cornerstone to the entire argument. I asked for a few reviews that show me the system is broke and he bends over backwards to do anything but demonstrate his point. He gives straw man after straw man, sets the bar higher and higher for each proof.

X is just a nut when it comes to this point. On other things he has points to make, but on this one he's just nutty. It's easy to prove the system is broke. Show me a bunch of sunny reviews for terrible toys by multiple sponsored reviewers. This would go beyond personal taste. I must have said this twenty times, but for some reason he just doesn't get it. There is no one smoking gun. X likes **** Impossible Toys! He said he'd recommend them to anyone! He should know that! He should know that sometimes people have unpopular opinions. He should know that better than anyone! Somehow he doesn't apply that knowledge here. His comments on the Bruticus upgrades convinced me that he'll cling to any straw to make dishonest points on reviewers. He convinced me that he has a personal dislike of sponsored reviewers; that this is a personal thing for him.

But there's no point in showing me personally anything now. X's use of consistent straw man arguments have totally convinced me that there is no problem. If there were a problem he'd be able to find misleading reviews easily instead of using every trick in the book other than addressing my points directly. Now I'm not interested in hearing his nutty theories. I'm responding now because it looks like he never even understood what I was saying to him. I mean **** wow. Going around in circles and he doesn't even **** understand a word I'm typing. It's anything but the facts with that guy. Eventually I'll unblock the guy, but as far as I'm concerned he's wearing a tin foil hat and holing up a cardboard sign about the end times when it comes to toy reviews.

tldr: It doesn't matter if a reviewer gets a $400+ toy for free. It only matters if it makes a bunch (not just one or two) of reviewers give bad reviews (not just one or two). Also, X has frustrated me. Hope I got that across.

For somebody who is annoyed by my stance enough to block me, you sure got a lot of crap to say about me. Your drooling with pro corporate babble showing you believe in the reviewers and what they do faithfully. Clearly you were biased from the very beginning in their favor. Maybe you see yourself as some sort of super pure ethical human being free of any form of corruption. Thats a very fitting stance for someone who appears to be very pro corporation. You believe in the machine. Peaugh says jump, you say how high. TJ says jump off a cliff, you dont question his logic, you just jump because he is the expert and you are the devoted follower. These sponsored reviewers are almost like televangelists for some people on this site. The moment I question their integrity, Im automatically labeled the villian. So f**k it, say hello to the bad guy.

In the real world you buy loyalty with free s**t. I say screw them and their honky dory sugarcoated reviews. They arent doing me any service or favors that I need to worship them as the chosen transformers gods. I got the balls to touch this hot potato even if it ruffles the feathers of of the faithful. This is something Im very passionate about and your damn right it matters.

I know that whatever that response is, it's likely directed at me.

X, you've shown you don't even understand my point. So, forget it.

Rated X wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

For somebody who is annoyed by my stance enough to block me, you sure got a lot of crap to say about me. Your drooling with pro corporate babble showing you believe in the reviewers and what they do faithfully. Clearly you were biased from the very beginning in their favor. Maybe you see yourself as some sort of super pure ethical human being free of any form of corruption. Thats a very fitting stance for someone who appears to be very pro corporation. You believe in the machine. Peaugh says jump, you say how high. TJ says jump off a cliff, you dont question his logic, you just jump because he is the expert and you are the devoted follower. These sponsored reviewers are almost like televangelists for some people on this site. The moment I question their integrity, Im automatically labeled the villian. So f**k it, say hello to the bad guy.

In the real world you buy loyalty with free s**t. I say screw them and their honky dory sugarcoated opinions. They arent doing me any service or favors that I need to worship them as the chosen transformers gods. I got the balls to touch this hot potato even if it ruffles the feathers of of the faithful. This is something Im very passionate about and your damn right it matters.

Sorry to interrupt again but again but do everyone a favor and ruffle the right feathers... Go on their Youtube channels and call them out, if you truly want to ruffle some feathers. All you are doing here is annoying Seibertron.com members that we pretty much interact with every day. No reviewers are going to come here and read the points you make so why not comment on their facebook pages and youtube channels like I've said before?

Rated X wrote:For somebody who is annoyed by my stance enough to block me, you sure got a lot of crap to say about me. Your drooling with pro corporate babble showing you believe in the reviewers and what they do faithfully. Clearly you were biased from the very beginning in their favor. Maybe you see yourself as some sort of super pure ethical human being free of any form of corruption. Thats a very fitting stance for someone who appears to be very pro corporation. You believe in the machine. Peaugh says jump, you say how high. TJ says jump off a cliff, you dont question his logic, you just jump because he is the expert and you are the devoted follower. These sponsored reviewers are almost like televangelists for some people on this site. The moment I question their integrity, Im automatically labeled the villian. So f**k it, say hello to the bad guy.

In the real world you buy loyalty with free s**t. I say screw them and their honky dory sugarcoated opinions. They arent doing me any service or favors that I need to worship them as the chosen transformers gods. I got the balls to touch this hot potato even if it ruffles the feathers of of the faithful. This is something Im very passionate about and your damn right it matters.

No one's in thrall of these reviewers. No one worships them. No one's staked out a claim of being doggedly pro-corporate. You, however, have certainly shown yourself to be irrationally anti-corporate, but only when it suits you. It's amazing how much praise you slop onto BBTS for their customer service, and then go around and hate on the people they sponsor.

You put all this effort into running your mouth, but have not shown a single shred of evidence to support your claims, and don't seem to have put any effort into getting information from the reviewers themselves. It's just lazy. You haven't exposed anyone... all you're doing is annoying the 3 people that read this thread.

<post removed>

Okay. Everyone to their corners. This is about the reviewers, not about Rated X. Gauntlet101010, by blocking him, you make it clear that your intention is to break off ALL communication with Rated X, so responding to him, directing comments towards him, or making comments about him is counterproductive and you're bringing it upon yourself. If he does comment or respond, that's his right and you gave it to him by doing all of this. If you're going to block someone, stick with it, because you CHOSE to ignore that person. Don't block them, make it public (which makes it seem like you're goading him and others) and then carry on as you have.

I think both of you are being absolutely ridiculous and considering you had taken the time to block him in the hopes of no more communication, I'm quite disappointed in your behavior here.

It's flamebait, whether you want to admit it or not and it needs to stop. You have him blocked, keep it that way. Pretend he doesn't exist, his posts aren't even there, and do not make posts about him again. Until you unblock him, you have no right to speak of him, that's part of the whole block/ignore feature.

Please guys, cut this crap out, it needs to stop. And Rated X, I know you want to stick to your guns, and that's fine, but can you please try and tone down the confrontational attitude? Not everyone is going to agree with you and trying to shove your thoughts down the throats of others isn't going to work.

To the both of you (and anyone else who'd want to pick a fight with Rated X, and vice versa) drop it now and focus on the topic at hand, not bicker back and forth over pointlessness that will never ever affect your lives in any meaningful way. The rest of us have to weed through it, the staff receive reports on it, and you guys never listen.

Well, I'm not asking, this is an absolute demand: Stop it. Behave.

You're right. I'm sorry. I'm sorry for my attitude, X.

megatronus wrote:

Rated X wrote:For somebody who is annoyed by my stance enough to block me, you sure got a lot of crap to say about me. Your drooling with pro corporate babble showing you believe in the reviewers and what they do faithfully. Clearly you were biased from the very beginning in their favor. Maybe you see yourself as some sort of super pure ethical human being free of any form of corruption. Thats a very fitting stance for someone who appears to be very pro corporation. You believe in the machine. Peaugh says jump, you say how high. TJ says jump off a cliff, you dont question his logic, you just jump because he is the expert and you are the devoted follower. These sponsored reviewers are almost like televangelists for some people on this site. The moment I question their integrity, Im automatically labeled the villian. So f**k it, say hello to the bad guy.

In the real world you buy loyalty with free s**t. I say screw them and their honky dory sugarcoated opinions. They arent doing me any service or favors that I need to worship them as the chosen transformers gods. I got the balls to touch this hot potato even if it ruffles the feathers of of the faithful. This is something Im very passionate about and your damn right it matters.

No one's in thrall of these reviewers. No one worships them. No one's staked out a claim of being doggedly pro-corporate. You, however, have certainly shown yourself to be irrationally anti-corporate, but only when it suits you. It's amazing how much praise you slop onto BBTS for their customer service, and then go around and hate on the people they sponsor.

You put all this effort into running your mouth, but have not shown a single shred of evidence to support your claims, and don't seem to have put any effort into getting information from the reviewers themselves. It's just lazy. You haven't exposed anyone... all you're doing is annoying the 3 people that read this thread.

at least its in this thread and not the other thread (at least not always)

Anyay as megs more or less stated, imho reviewers have their place in the sun. No need to swallow everything hook, line and sinker from them. Thaty makes you a zombie.

I already mentioned an incident involving another industry that there was collusion. Here, not so clear.........maybe because the toyfigure industry isn't yet into the billions yet. But as all humans are flawed, there will alays be a possibility of collusion.

So we need not be too "loyal" to a particular reviewer but weigh them all equally. Not any of these ignorant loyalty but a well thought out of decision.

Personally I watch reviewers to see the figure I'm interested in in motion. I can see for myself what is good or bad (in my eyes) without the reviewer telling me what to think.

Robogeek1973 wrote:Personally I watch reviewers to see the figure I'm interested in in motion. I can see for myself what is good or bad (in my eyes) without the reviewer telling me what to think.

Well it would be helpful if a reviewer told you this happened to Huff. Skip to the 10 min mark




Problem is plenty doesn't. I've never sent figures back to BBTS until recently and from my last POL i had to send 3 things back due to back QC... Kind of a shame.

Did you guys see Peaugh's Cubrar review? One of the handles for the weapon snapped off mid-review, and he doesn't even mention in. He carries on as if everything's fine, even though you can see the thing broke.

I left a comment on the video asking why he didn't even acknowledge it.

megatronus wrote:Did you guys see Peaugh's Cubrar review? One of the handles for the weapon snapped off mid-review, and he doesn't even mention in. He carries on as if everything's fine, even though you can see the thing broke.

I left a comment on the video asking why he didn't even acknowledge it.

At what Min? I saw this "review" and didn't even notice.

Yeah, Huff's QC issues are horrible.


I haven't watched Peaugh's review, but will hafta try and do so now so I can see the part where he doesn't mention it happening.

mooncake623 wrote:

megatronus wrote:Did you guys see Peaugh's Cubrar review? One of the handles for the weapon snapped off mid-review, and he doesn't even mention in. He carries on as if everything's fine, even though you can see the thing broke.

I left a comment on the video asking why he didn't even acknowledge it.

At what Min? I saw this "review" and didn't even notice.

12:17, clearly breaks the axe handle, doesnt mention it ONCE!, Note how he also covers up the fist that the axe handle is stuck in with his thumb before transforming it! The guy is dishonest, he does not provide a true representation of the figures he "reviews", how much evidence do people need.

leakin' lubricant wrote:

megatronus wrote:Did you guys see Peaugh's Cubrar review? One of the handles for the weapon snapped off mid-review, and he doesn't even mention in. He carries on as if everything's fine, even though you can see the thing broke.

I left a comment on the video asking why he didn't even acknowledge it.

12:17, clearly breaks the axe handle, doesnt mention it ONCE!, Note how he also covers up the fist that the axe handle is stuck in with his thumb before transforming it! The guy is dishonest, he does not provide a true representation of the figures he "reviews", how much evidence do people need.

i watched it. and that totally does happen. and i hate to say it, but it really does look like he tries to cover it up with his finger, and transform it quickly so you dont see the nub stuck in the lil guys hand. and hiding it just seems odd, cause when he's transformed, those handles stick straight up and theyre clearly different lengths now.

he could have simply edited it out, or plugged how great BBTS's customer service was. its not like there wasnt ways to turn it around.

dirty pool mister.

shajaki wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:

megatronus wrote:Did you guys see Peaugh's Cubrar review? One of the handles for the weapon snapped off mid-review, and he doesn't even mention in. He carries on as if everything's fine, even though you can see the thing broke.

I left a comment on the video asking why he didn't even acknowledge it.

12:17, clearly breaks the axe handle, doesnt mention it ONCE!, Note how he also covers up the fist that the axe handle is stuck in with his thumb before transforming it! The guy is dishonest, he does not provide a true representation of the figures he "reviews", how much evidence do people need.

i watched it. and that totally does happen. and i hate to say it, but it really does look like he tries to cover it up with his finger, and transform it quickly so you dont see the nub stuck in the lil guys hand. and hiding it just seems odd, cause when he's transformed, those handles stick straight up and theyre clearly different lengths now.

he could have simply edited it out, or plugged how great BBTS's customer service was. its not like there wasnt ways to turn it around.

dirty pool mister.

The guys a joke! I personally have boycotted his reviews, they are worthless in my eyes, and I would advise any newcomers to the hobby to avoid this guys reviews like the plague.

leakin' lubricant wrote:The guys a joke! I personally have boycotted his reviews, they are worthless in my eyes, and I would advise any newcomers to the hobby to avoid this guys reviews like the plague.

im inclined to jump on the bandwagon. which is a shame since he has such a broad spectrum. but oh well, i wont miss the dryness or total lack of editing thats for sure.

*edit*
by the way, wheres X? i thought he'd have a field day with this.

Around 13:00, when he's playing with the mini-dude.

Hahhaha omg what a joke....

Maybe he didn't mention it because, when you watch, it was immediately obvious that it broke? He didn't seem to care too much. Either he's a great actor or he just didn't care as much about that.

Although you have convinced me he's too easy on the toys for you guys, it doesn't prove the main thrust of the argument. That all sponsored reviewers are untrustworthy. And it doesn't prove that they're untrustworthy because they've been sponsored either. You have to pick out a few reviews from other reviewers as well.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:Maybe he didn't mention it because, when you watch, it was immediately obvious that it broke? He didn't seem to care too much. Either he's a great actor or he just didn't care as much about that.

Although you have convinced me he's too easy on the toys for you guys, it doesn't prove the main thrust of the argument. That all sponsored reviewers are untrustworthy. And it doesn't prove that they're untrustworthy because they've been sponsored either. You have to pick out a few reviews from other reviewers as well.

That's fairly generous of you, especially since it appears he tries to either mask or minimize the appearance of the breakage. I don't think we're trying to prove X's argument for him; this just happens to be an egregious example of blatantly avoiding comment on something negative, and not just anything negative, but on camera breakage.

As we've established, there's no smoking gun short of some kind of bizarre reviewer confessional. But if this turns into a pattern of some sort, you have an argument against Peaugh, possibly. That says nothing about any of the other reviewers out there. It's just sort of annoying that he just... says nothing.

megatronus wrote:Around 13:00, when he's playing with the mini-dude.

sorry, whats at 13:00? i watched from 11:30 to the end and saw the breakage, but did i miss something?