All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 23, 2014 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
42:16
A Conversation with Jenni Bharaj about BasedGamer.com #GamerGate #NotYourShield
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello, everyone.
I'm here with Jenny Barrage to talk about her project, BasedGamer.com, which currently has an Indiegogo campaign for.
Hi, Jenny, how's it going?
I'm good.
How are you?
Very well, thanks.
So, do you want to tell everyone what basedgamer.com is before we get started?
Yeah, for sure.
So, if you guys don't know about basedgamer.com yet, make sure you guys check it out.
Do sign up.
Basedgamer.com is essentially a website that will focus mainly on an aggregation of game reviews.
Now, this site will be devoted and dependent on gamers, meaning that these reviews will be vetted through the community via, and I quote, a rating system where gamers will be able to vote and downvote game reviews.
Now, the website will incorporate YouTube reviews, a simple scoring system, a discussion forum, a page for editorials.
It's going to be really great.
Right, okay.
So, when you say aggregation, is it going to be critic aggregation or is it going to be user reviews?
So, it's going to be both.
Now, the difference between Based Gamer and our top competitor, which is Metacritic, is that the community reviews will be just as significant as critic reviews.
And this is kind of where BaseGamer differs a lot in comparison to Metacritic because the community will have the more significant voice.
And I feel that's very important.
Okay, so how exactly are they going to be differentiated?
How are people going to know?
Are just critic reviews going to be just like a regular review on there or what?
Right, exactly.
So, it will appear to be exactly like critic reviews.
They'll have the same rating systems.
And the point I'm trying to make is that the community will be able to vote on what they believe is a better review compared to the other reviews.
Now, we've seen a lot of reviews as of late where specific ideologies are being pushed into game reviews and the games industry.
And a lot of gamers don't like that.
And with Based Gamer, the gamer would be able to downvote that review so that it doesn't get aggregated into the ultimate overall review score.
Right, okay.
So, is there a threshold to being included in the overall review score?
So, you need like, I don't know, 100 upvotes or something.
Well, right now, the algorithm hasn't really been defined properly yet.
But what I hope to implement is kind of taking out the outlier, so to speak.
So, if a review has thousands of down votes in comparison to votes, that would be taken out, for example.
Right, okay.
I think it would be important then to have a discussion with not now, but at some point.
I think it would be a good idea to do these sort of discussions publicly as well.
Yeah, for sure.
This is actually one of the reasons why I wanted to make the campaign very public.
You know, I could have easily gone to the bank or asked for friends and family for money, but I felt that with a public campaign, you know, the community will be able to follow Base Gamer in every single thing that it does.
And this is essentially, you know, trying to promote transparency as well.
And I think the more input we get from the community, the more better basedgamer.com will be for everyone.
Yeah, I agree.
I think that's a good idea to get people involved as well.
Right.
And I just want to make it clear that with basedgamer.com, my main objective, and I really do want to make this clear, is to, pardon my French, to fuck over the websites that are calling us dead.
It's as simple as that.
I've had enough of this bullshit and I want to end it.
Now, I'm getting a lot of complaints saying that I should start off with a low-level website.
But, you know, our opposition is not going to see these low-level websites as a threat, and that's a very big problem.
This is why I'm coming up with, yeah, this is why I'm coming up with a very strong team that I have selected through my network so we can do this once, we can do this quickly, and we can do this right.
You know, this is why I wanted to create Based Gamer because I've had enough.
I want this to be our solution.
No, I think that's a good idea.
I agree that one of the main criticism I've seen is that you're asking for $50,000, which is a lot of money for a website.
However, for me personally, I don't, I mean, it is a lot of money to ask for for a website, but I actually do agree on this point.
If you're going to do something, do it right.
Best foot forward.
Like you said, these people aren't, they're not going to see it as anything significant.
And if it doesn't look good and it's not properly tested and it doesn't work very well, people aren't going to go there.
So it's one of those things that you really have to get right first time.
And like with everything, people say, oh, there's so much money, but you get what you pay for.
So if you don't put the money in, you don't get what you want out of it.
And one of the things that I want to stress to everyone, no one's asking for $50,000 of your own money, Reaxion, or whatever you called.
God, that title really pissed me off.
But sorry, yeah, so, okay.
I don't really, I haven't, I didn't really read that Reaction.
Is that how you say a Reaction?
It's okay.
He's got some questions that I'll ask you in a bit.
Okay, I didn't really read the article, but I was taken a bit back a bit from the title, like you said.
It's just interesting.
I hope they got a lot of views from that article.
Well, I think the thing to remember is that people really care about what's going on.
They really care.
And let's be honest, everyone's been fucking burned hard by the press.
So it's difficult to trust.
And I don't blame anyone for finding it difficult to trust.
I think everyone rightly should, to be honest.
I actually have a question about that.
I have also heard that a lot of gamers have been burned recently a lot, but I'm not quite sure how.
Well, just the whole Gamergate issue, I think, is the burning.
But getting back to Base Gamer a second, so can you tell us about the team?
Because I think one of the main complaints or criticisms people have is they don't know anything about the team that you're working with.
And they don't know where they've come from, why you've chosen them, what their strengths are.
I think everyone needs a lot more information.
Well in my Outline and Details document I did go thoroughly into everyone's details.
I don't know.
No, I've got that.
What page is on?
Oh, it's I think it's right in the beginning actually.
Maybe I can pull that.
Chapter 2 team, right.
Right, so you've got here the team is you leading it.
Yes.
MP star, is that the right one?
Yes.
Who's that?
So MP is MP and SZ.
I should actually write this down before I say their actual names.
So MP and SZ, they are leading the tech side of Based Gamer.
And SM is doing my in-house legal research.
And this is significantly cutting costs down for legal costs.
So she's very critical at this point.
Okay, why haven't you put their full names though?
Okay, people keep on asking me about this and it's getting incredibly frustrating.
The people who are complaining that I'm not exposing my teammates' names, I don't think they understand how serious and risky it is to be involved in Gamergate right now.
We've already had people getting fired for speaking out for Gamergate.
We've had people get a knife in the mail.
We've had people getting swatted get a syringe filled with mysterious fluid.
My team members work in very professional industries right now and they are very sensitive to Gamergate.
These people have dependents.
They have themselves to worry about.
And this isn't an unusual situation either.
I've had multiple messages from the community thanking me for standing up in Gamergate because they can't simply because of the reason of risking losing their jobs and for the safety of their children.
I don't think people understand how serious this has gotten.
I actually have to, I do have to agree.
I had to actually pull the video of the AAA developer I had a conversation with because he was compromised and wanted it removed because he didn't want it used against him.
So there is actually a lot of validity to what you're saying, just in case anyone's doubting.
Yeah, exactly.
People have a lot to lose right now.
And as project lead, I'm not going to risk my team members just like I believe in transparency, but when it comes to the potential of physical harm, I'm not going to give it.
I'm not so much worried about the physical harm.
I doubt that any of these social justice internet psychos are really capable of much.
What I'd be worried about is them trying to get them fired and trying to ruin their future career prospects, actually.
Well, right now, with what's happened, people are getting swatted and stuff.
That's incredibly dangerous.
I know, especially given the rate that American police shoot people.
Right.
But okay.
Okay, fair enough.
I think that's a reasonable answer.
Okay, so the reviews, they're going to have a certain threshold.
Are you going to have like, I don't know, like a main reviews page and then like a vote page?
I don't know whether I've seen I'm thinking of the site tickled.com.
It's some meme site.
But they've got like a like top page and then a voting page and stuff like that.
I actually don't know about this website, but could you spell that out for me?
I might as well check it out.
Yeah, it's T-I-C-K-L-B.com, I think.
Cool.
Okay.
It's just a meme side, but it's got like, you know, good, you know, the top reviews and then like new ones that people vote on.
And it seems like that might be a good way of managing, you know, which reviews are popular.
And I presume that people are going to be going there because they want good reviews rather than just social justice reviews.
And which reviews are obviously not.
Right.
Well, right now, what I'm trying to create is just like a one single page with votes and down votes.
And there'd be the critic reviews on one side and the community reviews on one side.
So it's all on one nice-looking minimal space that is easy to read and it's like friendly for everyone, basically.
Right, okay.
But I can't help but get the feeling that having all of the, well, I don't know.
Anyway, it's not so important.
Well, you're talking about the aesthetics right now.
No, not really.
I'm actually talking about the functionality of the site.
Okay.
Because I don't want to see loads of crap reviews if I go to a website.
Not crap reviews of games, like saying this game is crap, but reviews that are shit in themselves.
I don't really want to see the bad ones because I'm a person with time.
I've got limited amounts of it, and I don't want to have to sift through.
There might be 10 reviews that are shit for everyone that's good.
So I think a method of kind of pruning out the good ones, especially if you've got a voting system, is really easy to do.
Exactly.
And even on YouTube.
You can quite easily do that.
Exactly.
It's all a matter of filtering through reviews.
And we've seen this over and over again on YouTube and Facebook and everywhere.
Twitter, that's very easy to implement.
So that's not a big issue.
Okay.
Well, yeah, okay.
I think it's a good idea to have it being like a public voting system.
I don't actually know how Rotten Tomatoes works, but I have a funny feeling that's how that works.
Well, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't actually have a voting system, but what they do is they, well, see, with the movie industry, it's so much easier to grasp the better critics compared to the so-and-so critics.
So what Rotten Tomatoes does is they have a handful of prestigious critics and they aggregate a score based on them.
And then there's always the consumer score as well.
So it's like it's kind of like the same thing in the sense that it's critic and community reviews, but the critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are just a handful of critics.
Right, okay.
So I'm very, I mean, this is all just my personal opinion.
But one thing that I personally would like to see the sort of trend away from, you know, critic X has said this and critic Y has said that.
I really like the idea of people writing their own reviews and then people reading them and saying, oh, that was a good review.
That told me a lot.
You know, that informed me in the way I needed to be informed.
You know, and voting that because then it's about the content of the message rather than the person saying it.
And, you know, their identity and their agenda, it's, you know, I think you know what I'm saying.
Yeah, I totally, I totally know what you're saying.
And it's really, like, what I really hope to see with Base Gamer is like a new flourishing connection with journalists and gamers.
So when a critic posts their review on Base Gamer, the community will be able to comment on it and critique it and discuss about it.
And I think this will kind of make that connection again.
Because right now, it's completely lost, especially with the prominent websites out there right now for games.
So how is it going to work?
Is it going to work on a scoring system or is it just going to be like a recommended, not recommended?
Right.
So Base Gamer will essentially make the community voice much more strong in comparison to Metacritic, which is the leading competition for video game aggregator aggregation right now.
And the scoring system is going to be very different.
So instead of mysterious percentages, Base Gamer will score games based on a four-point scale.
Now, right now, the names aren't official, but the points will be excellent, good, okay, and very bad.
Now, as a gamer, I know that a lot of games usually fall into the good or the okay score.
So when a game is excellent, you know, gamers will know that that game is worth picking up.
You know, when a game is very bad, gamers will know that that game sucks.
And so in my opinion, this will create a lot of clarity when it comes to reviews.
Okay, I don't find that an objectionable system.
One of the things, I like the idea of just recommended or not recommended, but for me that lacks nuance.
There are some games I might recommend, possibly, or they're a bit above, it's not that I wouldn't recommend them, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend them.
And having good and excellent and then average and poor, I think, is actually quite a nice way of doing things.
Exactly.
So with Rotten Tomatoes, what they do is they have the recommendation and the not recommendation scores.
This is where you see the tomato and the splat symbols.
So I've divided that into four sections.
So it's not just one or the other.
It's the excellent, the averages, and the very bad.
But this isn't all.
So there's going to be the obvious overall score, but there's also...
What's the overall score going to be?
So the overall score is going to be the summary of the four different elements that I'm going to involve into the video game reviews as well.
So right now, those four elements are going to be visuals, entertainment, gameplay, and storyline.
Now, I'm planning to add music and audio in this as well.
Can I make a recommendation?
Rather than having visuals, why not just have aesthetic?
Right.
So I was planning on changing that name to aesthetics, but for the sake of simplicity, in my document, I wrote visuals, so it's easier.
Yeah.
Aesthetics and visuals, okay, I know how that's defined.
How's entertainment defined?
So there's a lot of games out there that aren't necessarily prominent in its storyline or its gameplay.
Like, for example, a really stupid game like Flappy Birds, Flappy Bird, for instance, that's a mobile game, but it's so famous because it's just mindless entertainment and it's so much fun, but no one ever talks about the storyline.
No one ever talks about the visuals of Flappy Bird in A nice description and all that.
Flappy Bird is more for the casual gamer.
And I feel like there is a lot of gamers out there that prefer just mindless, entertaining games.
And so we need to cater to gamers like that too.
A lot of games do have just a lot of them do have mindless entertainment.
I mean, Diablo is a great example of that.
Honestly, I absolutely love Diablo, but it's not challenging.
Gameplay isn't magnificent, but it is entertaining.
So I can understand the need for the category like that.
So how exactly is gameplay going to be rated?
Is it just relative to the game?
Is it?
Well, with gameplay, I plan to define gameplay scores based on the challenging aspect of gameplay and as well as the uniqueness of gameplay.
Right, okay.
And storyline as well.
This is one of those incredibly subjective things nine out of ten times, isn't it?
Right.
And there's also the instance of games that don't really have a strong storyline on purpose, like for example, sports games or FPS games.
And I think for those games, those certain elements will have to be omitted, and that's completely fine.
Right, okay.
So, I mean, maybe it'd be worth categorizing the things instead of necessarily breaking it down like this.
Well, it's much more easier that way because as a gamer, everyone has different interests in video games.
Like, for example, for me, I love visuals and video games.
So if a game like Far Cry 4 has an overall score of poor or okay, you know, I can look into the four categories and see that visuals and storyline has an excellent rating.
So despite the overall score, I will know that that game fits my interest.
I'll be willing to pick it up just because of that.
And not only that, the search engine of Base Gamer will be so much easier for the gamer to look for games that they love.
Like, say, if they want to play something that's mindless entertainment, you know, they can quickly click on entertaining, you know, entertaining games out there, and they can find a list that's customized for them and for their interests.
It's just going to revolutionize how gamers pick and choose their games and just basically having honest reviews by the community and for the community.
Okay, well, I think that is a good idea.
I think that you probably do need to have a few more conversations with people at large to hammer out the details.
Because I'm a bit concerned about some of the nuance.
And the thing is, I'm not, I mean, I personally don't get a video game review sites.
I talk to people and get recommendations that way.
So I'm not the target audience for this.
Well, see, that's the problem.
We have been probably for more than a decade now, depending on word of mouth and forums and websites like Reddit because we just can't trust these review sites anymore.
And that's what's so heartbreaking.
And I want to change that.
I think because of Gamergate, you know, it's like I've kind of been fueled with a passion to bring back video games and the industry that I love so much.
And your comment is just gives me more fuel.
It's not right that you have to depend on other people instead of professionals in industry.
It's sad.
Yeah, it is.
I agree.
It's a fucking sorry state of affairs, isn't it?
It is.
But in fact, now I'm thinking about it, it does.
I mean, what you're proposing does sound a lot like just word of mouth on the internet.
Exactly.
And that's essentially what I want to create word of mouth on the internet.
Yes.
Okay, well, let me start asking you some of the questions that people have asked.
Okay, sure.
So what would come through it long?
So I've been told that you pledged $2,000 of your own money to the campaign.
Is that correct?
Yes, that is absolutely correct.
For some reason, the fact that I put $2,000 of my own money is making everyone feel like I'm trying to manipulate or cause social proof among the community.
This is absolutely crazy.
I've got to say, I find that a bit strange too.
I would have thought that, I mean, for me, I think that when someone pledges $2,000 of their own money, that actually shows that they're invested in the project because I think $2,000 is a lot of money.
Right.
I've found that criticism frankly strange.
And I realize people are probably like, oh, he's going really easy on it.
But I honestly do think it's strange to criticize someone for putting their own money into a project they're trying to create.
I mean, I think people are complaining because Indiegurgo takes 4%, I think, of the total amount.
And so you're losing money with your own.
Right, yeah.
And I knew that.
I had to make the conscious decision of investing $2,000 into this campaign.
I could have easily said I'll be investing $2K after the campaign is over or before I can make a fake expense list of where inputting $2,000 in of my own money.
But where is the transparency in that?
I could have easily lied.
Yeah, people would not believe me.
I'm already getting slack for trivial reasons like this.
Imagine how much more slack I would have gotten if I hadn't invested $2,000 of my own money.
BaseGamer is supposed to be a website created by the passion of so many gamers like us.
I'm willing to put my hard work, my money, my sweat, all of my hours into making this a success.
If that $2,000 doesn't show you that, and if my history with Gamergate doesn't show you that, then it's honestly very sad.
Okay.
Right.
So the gentleman who wrote the Reaxion.com article actually commented on the video.
So he's got some questions that he'd like to ask.
So I'm going to go through them.
Why does your budget call for $12,000 in legal fees?
He feels that this is a bit more than you would think a web startup would need.
A lot of people felt like the legal fees were a big extensive, but the legal firm recommended that I budget for a maximum of six days for all the necessary legal work that I'll need to get done for BaseGamer.
Now, this isn't just six days all at once.
This is for the entire duration of the build of Base Gamer.
Also, my team and I will be building employment and volunteer contracts, NDAs, non-competes, non-solicits.
I don't think people realize how important legal is.
It's silly to think that it isn't.
For any commercial grade build, it's important that legal is done right.
I've been to a lot of startup seminars that focus on legal requirements, and they recommend for any startup that legal should be considered as one of the top priorities, along with technical and design requirements, of course.
But legal should be considered just as significant.
Okay.
The section in your document that deals with using open source content management system seems disingenuous.
You're frequently asked questions, ask two questions.
Why not open source the development and why not start small with the CMS and plugins and build from there?
But while it answers the first question, it doesn't answer the latter.
So why start small with the CMS and plugins and build from there?
Okay, again, we do not want to start too small and build a simple site.
BaseGamer is planning to be a commercial-level site right when it launches.
This is because our opposition won't care otherwise.
We have a solid dev team right now of designers and developers that we know.
And we know they'll do a good job.
And we know they'll build a well-running site.
And we want to use that team because we trust that team.
And that team even said that we'll have a higher customizability with our algorithms by using raw code.
And they frankly just don't want to rely too heavily on sites like WordPress.
Okay.
I completely agree.
I think that if you're going to do something, go out with your best foot forward.
I wouldn't think that starting small and building up was actually the best move in this case.
So number three, you have two separate and drastically different cost breakdowns.
The cost breakdown in your Indiegogo page bears no relationship whatsoever to the breakdown in your detailed document.
There's no mention of the $12,000 in legal fees, for example, or the fact that you're spending $7,000 making your website mobile responsive.
This is actually something I'm concerned with as well.
So which one is the correct breakdown?
And if so, why is this still available?
Yeah, the initial cost breakdown was actually a very rough estimate that I initially had.
At the time, we were negotiating legal costs because we didn't have a hard figure.
We were actually trying to get it down to around $250 an hour.
But that was updated that also.
Right, okay.
Yeah, I should actually update my Indiegogo page.
So thank you for letting me know.
Yeah, I agree that you should.
So I find the $7,000 making your website mobile responsive a bit strange.
I don't think it's too much of a difficult job to make a website work on mobiles.
Why does that cost $7,000?
Well, I don't want to give you the wrong answers here, but from what I've researched, this is actually a very, very common price point.
I've worked with previous startups where focusing on mobile apps.
And very simple mobile apps can range you around $5 to $12K.
Oh, right.
So you're going to get a mobile app for the website made by a third party.
Well, right now, we're not focusing on a native app.
We're focusing on a simple, like a web app.
But I don't want to spare you with that.
It's okay if you want to say that you don't have an answer, but be aware that people will expect you to provide an answer in the future.
Exactly.
I don't want to give you guys or anyone the wrong answer.
So if you do feel like this is a very important question, I can definitely get back to you with an answer from my technical team.
But from my previous history with startups, this is a very, very common price point.
I'd recommend writing a Twit longer post and tweeting it so people can see what the answer to that question is.
I've actually never written a Twit longer post in my life.
I haven't either, so I can't advise you on how to do it.
Excuse me, sorry.
I would recommend answering these questions just because I really think, and it's okay if you don't have the answers now, because I personally understand why you wouldn't have all of these answers now.
But I do think they are questions that need to be addressed.
So, right, going on to the next one.
Have you shopped around at all for a way to reduce these costs or thoroughly investigated alternatives?
Given that you're planning to make this a going concern, why aren't you and your team doing this nights and weekends in their spare time like most web startups?
Okay, I'm not quite sure what you meant by doing this nights and weekends because right now I am going overtime right now.
So is that question saying that I'm not doing anything?
They just want to know how many hours a week that you're putting into it, really.
Okay, I've already logged in 100 plus hours with Base Gamer, so I am definitely putting my work in.
I don't think I've slept in my bed yet.
And it's been three weeks.
And how have you attempted to minimize the costs?
I mean, have you shopped around a lot or have you?
Yeah, for sure.
Yeah, yeah.
My team and I have shopped around a lot.
Fortunately, we did find a great dev team, and they've proven themselves to be really reliable and trustworthy.
And they've given us a pretty good discount as well so we can just sustain our 50K budget.
As of now, I'm trying to lower costs, but even then, the cost savings that I do get will go straight back into the website because a lot of people are having issues with having ads on basedgamer.com.
And I think with excessive funds, we won't need to utilize ads, which is a great thing.
Okay, well, since you've mentioned that, what's going to be happening there?
Because I've had a few questions regarding that, so I'll sum them all up now.
Basically, people want to know whether you're going to be using an advertising model or some kind of Patreon-style model.
Well, right now, it's going to be simple advertisements.
And how much of the page roughly are you expecting that to take up?
I don't want it to take up a lot.
That's not what I created BaseGamer for.
I plan to have them neatly to the side, nothing spammy, nothing flashy.
I want them to be clearly labeled as advertisements to show transparency and show that we are fully and completely disclosing these ads, but nothing extreme at all.
Can you still hear me, by the way?
Yes, I can.
Okay, great.
Okay.
So you predicted it would take roughly 650 hours.
Sorry, I might.
No, you're good.
You're good.
Sorry.
Yeah, my browser's going funny for some reason.
Yeah, so it's predicted that it'd take roughly 650 hours.
Should it take longer than that or exceed the budget?
What are you going to do for funds?
If it takes longer?
Okay, well, right now our plan is if it does take longer, we'll start looking into long-term investments.
As of now, we're hoping that that isn't the case.
So, yeah.
If it does though, and if you go over budget, are you going to try and raise more funds?
I mean, are you going to try another crowdfunding campaign or a Patreon or what are you going to do?
I mean, because I think people need to know that you have a contingency plan.
Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by contingency plan.
What are you going to do if things don't go to plan?
Right.
So, you know, I've always been a fighter when it comes to my startups and my projects.
If I do need external funds, you know, my team and I have discussed about long-term investments, and that is our plan B at the moment.
I don't plan to do another crowdfunding campaign, only because it's been pretty controversial, and I just don't want to do the same thing again.
No, I understand.
Yeah.
Hang on, I'm just going to have to refresh my browser.
Sorry about this.
Oh, no problem.
Sorry about that.
It's okay.
Okay, so...
So do you think opening an aggregator site is good at a time like this, considering how the situation between bloggers and Gamergate is pretty volatile?
Yes, for sure.
Oh, definitely.
I think a website like this will almost create an alliance between the two parties.
Right now, we're using Twitter for these little petty little fights online.
And with BaseGamer, I think people can healthily lash out on each other and focus on games, good discussions.
Not just like 140 characters.
I think it'll definitely create that connection that we need.
I assume there'll be quite lengthy comment sections on each review.
Oh, for sure, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
But that's a great thing, you know.
Communication is key.
Absolutely.
I'd be disappointed if there wasn't.
So do you think that such a project will fan the flames between us and the social justice warriors, especially when one side will up a score on the game that the other side hates?
So, yeah, that, but do you think it's going to fan the flames between gamers and social justice warriors?
I don't think so, because right now, the social justice warriors and, you know, us, we are on separate little planes right now.
And if everyone is united on Base Gamer, I think it will allow both parties to kind of see where the other is coming from.
And even what I hope to see is conversations happening.
And if an SJW downvotes or likes a certain game, then a gamer can ask why.
Why is this getting upvoted?
Why is this getting downvoted?
And that will create that communication that we so desperately need.
Because right now, it seems like the two parties are divided and no one wants to listen to each other.
Okay.
And I just want to point out that I have tried so hard to get in touch with anti-Gamergate.
And right now.
Everyone has.
Everyone has.
Yeah, and it's very difficult.
I'm trying to talk with them off record, not just on Twitter.
And it's hard.
These people just want to push their narrative on you and not have any sort of friendly and or proper discussion.
It's really sad.
Yeah, I agree.
They completely shut down any kind of debate.
Yeah, but I think on Based Gamer, it'll be so much, like they'll almost be obliged or obligated to discuss their opinions with other people.
And I think that's a great thing.
Okay.
So will you have moderators on the site?
Yes, for sure.
So there's going to be the filter, the automated filter, and then there's going to be moderators as well.
Okay, tell me about the automated filter.
So right now, what I want the automated filter to do, and this is specifically for the review pages, I don't plan to have this filter for the discussion forums.
What I want is to censor out all the curse words.
Now, a lot of people don't like this, but I feel like this will allow a bigger community of gamers to celebrate BaseGamer, and I think that's a great thing.
Okay, that's, I mean, I understand, but you might be appealing to younger audiences as well.
Exactly.
I don't think there's any harm with that.
Okay, so I'm just going to get the next question.
Well, here's my opinion.
Sorry, here's my question to you and everyone listening.
What do you guys feel about having a new aggregator website?
Sorry, say that again.
My internet connection kind of spazzed out there.
Sorry, I meant how do you feel about a new aggregator website focused on video game reviews?
▲
Export Selection