Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Discussing Necromancer

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 23, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

02:26:19

Discussing Necromancer

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hello everyone.
	So an internet user called Varilo has accused me of certain things or at least written some kind of expose on me and someone called Seattle Truth asked me if I'd face my accusers.
	He isn't here yet, but we're expecting him to turn up.
	But I thought I'd face my accusers.
	So this should be probably rather boring when you guys find out exactly what's happening.
	I think it'll probably be interesting for anyone who's aspiring to be an indie dev and wants to know how UK company law works.
	So there should be at least some information here that could be useful for you guys.
	Right, the article in question is in the description, so you can go and have a read of it.
	So, Varunote, let's start at the beginning, then.
	So, you say the purpose of this piece is to point out the questionable decisions as both a developer and a YouTuber that Mr. Carl Benjamin, otherwise known as Stargon of a CAD, has taken.
	Can you give me some examples of those?
	Well, the examples are pretty much right there in the article.
	I divide it into, and I'm using the term article quite freely.
	It's more of a blog.
	Yeah, it's a thing rather than a thing.
	Yeah, it's a thing.
	That's a good description.
	And I've simply pointed out things that I found concerning, including from the YouTube and from a game developer perspective.
	If you take a look at the article, and I'm going to be interested to see what specific things you either think I got factually incorrect or disagree with.
	If you take a look at it, the first part, which is YouTube, I clearly state that is taking certain things that happened and almost from an opinion standpoint giving my opinion, while the developer part is more based on facts, or at least facts that both I found and or were presented to me.
	So which one do you want to go into first?
	Well, we'll start with the YouTube stuff since that's the first in the article.
	All right, go ahead.
	What did you take issue with?
	Well, why don't you explain your position to me rather than me taking it.
	I could go through with a fine-tooth comb and take issue with a lot of things, but I'd like you to present your case, if you don't mind.
	Because people listening would like to hear that, I think.
	Okay.
	I do need to mention that I don't like usually doing these kind of things because I feel it takes away.
	It's kind of like a too long, didn't read kind of thing.
	But it's your channel and I will do it.
	The article is in the description so they can read the details if they feel that they're not getting all the information.
	So if we go through the article itself, I state that it seems from the beginning of Gamergate itself, one of the first things that you did was you talked about Digra.
	I don't know if it's Digra or Digra.
	I don't know how they pronounce it, but I normally call it Digra, but yeah.
	So you did a lot of digging into Digra and you presented the idea that, hey, what's happening with the Gamers Are Dead article, what's happening with these people who are attacking us.
	One of the sources where it comes from is academia and this social justice ideology that is taking a hold of not just academia, it's now spreading into gaming and you establish some pretty interesting connections between the three.
	And as time has gone on, I feel that you've kind of abandoned more of that and have gone more for it's just about ethics.
	That's entirely deliberate.
	So it's not that it's spread.
	That makes it sound like it was involuntary and accidental.
	They are deliberately trying to push feminism into games.
	I'm actually, I'll be doing a retrospective on the Playfulist Political at some point, because now that we know so much more about what's going on than we did at the time, it's very interesting.
	But the point is, the person in that discussion was Adrian Shaw, who is a diagram member, although the paper referenced wasn't a digra paper, but the paper that we're talking about that she'd written.
	Can I cut in real quick which video we're talking about?
	Because I link multiple ones.
	I don't know.
	Probably, I think it was how Digra caught the end of gamers.
	Okay.
	It was actually my mistake to say Digra.
	She is a Digra member, but it wasn't a Digra paper.
	I should have actually been more astute on that one.
	But nevertheless, she is a Digramember, and her and Shira Chess, who again is a Diagram member, are at this roundtable discussion trying to use Sillstring Media's PR connections to push feminism into gaming.
	And her article, I can't remember the title of it exactly.
	Do you identify as a gamer, I think it is, it's directly linked in Dan Golding's Tumblr post, which and the Dan Golding's Tumblr, it's the intellectual validation and justification for his Tumblr post.
	And his Tumblr post was linked in most of the Gamers Are Dead articles.
	There is a direct connection there.
	But the thing is, what more needs to be said about that?
	We know that they are trying to push feminism into video games using their connections through the media.
	The thing is, I mean, what do we actually say about Adrian Shaw that's wrong?
	I mean, what's the accusation there?
	You're trying to push your agenda into games.
	Well, of course I am.
	Of course she is.
	She's an academic feminist.
	There's no doubt that that is going to be what she wants to do.
	The issue is to deal with the journalists and how they are allowing agenda pushing.
	And obviously they are.
	And the best way to combat them is to demand ethical standards of them.
	Well, I understand that.
	I do disagree.
	I understand, but I disagree.
	I believe, first of all, I agreed with your earlier assertions when it came to Diggra and it came to these people not trying, but actually pushing their ideology, their social justice and all that, you know, feminism, whatever people want to call it, pushing that into gaming and trying to control the narrative.
	The reason I don't think it can just be resolved with simply codes of ethics, for example, is because all of these journalists, it's not a coincidence, they're all social justice warriors.
	All of these people that are fighting against us directly, not the people who don't know about it and are just, you know, heard Gamergate is bad and wrote about it.
	I'm talking about the people we're fighting.
	They're clearly of a specific ideology.
	And that ideology...
	Of course not.
	Of course not.
	Hang on, hang on.
	It...
	Is there anything about my channel that you think in some way that I sympathize or side with feminists or social justice warriors?
	No.
	Well, exactly.
	I don't know why you would ask that.
	Well, the reason I ask that is because I'm surprised that you don't think that...
	I mean, why do you think that I'm more interested in ethics when it comes to game day?
	I don't understand the question.
	Well, instead of trying to make it a feminist issue about feminism and ideology, I'm interested in discussing violations of ethics in games journalism, which I know it sounds silly, but if we make it so it's not silly, then it won't sound silly.
	And, well, I mean, why do you think I'm more interested in talking about that than feminism?
	I mean, it would be a lot more to my advantage if Gamergate was about feminism, because, by God, I'm a fucking expert in this sort of thing.
	So I would much prefer to talk about feminism rather than polygon.
	That's not really a win condition.
	That's why I don't.
	I have no interest in speculating about your motive.
	What I believe is that it's a fundamental flaw to specifically believe that just asking for ethics and codes of ethics and not fighting them and the ideologically and the ideology, excuse me, directly, I don't think we can win in that manner.
	And when you say things like, for example, Gamergate has already won, we've gotten everything that we've wanted in not one, but two videos and on the David Pac-Man show, I think that's just Gamergate has achieved its objectives, and I think it's become a consumer watchdog.
	Well, I don't think there's ethics in game journalism, though.
	I don't see that.
	I mean, the same sites that we fought a year ago are now just bigger and are both all in control.
	The majority of the people who are there still work there.
	I'm not happy that certain people.
	Then how can we have achieved our goal if Gamergate was about ethics and game journalism and again?
	The goal was to reform the industry, surely.
	The goal was to say, look, you people will have codes of ethics and you will stand by them.
	Now, I don't think it's been long enough to find out whether they have been standing by them or not.
	I mean, if you, if I think the whole point is that we continue to look out for things, journalistic malpractice that they do, because then we can hold them to account to their own standards of ethics.
	That's why we wanted the fucking things, surely.
	But once again, codes of ethics were just bullet points.
	They weren't the goal itself.
	And saying that we've that Gamergate has achieved ethics and game journalism was one of the main goals and anti-censorship and removing these people from control and removing their ability.
	Okay.
	Hang on, right.
	Okay.
	And anti-censorship, I think that's an ethics issue.
	I think censorship is an ethics issue.
	Getting ethics and game journalism, it begins with having, well, and not even begins.
	I think the major point is to have these sites enforce their ethics policies.
	And if they didn't have ethics policies to begin with, or very laissez-faire about their ethics policies, then I think, you know, making them create new ones or at least update old ones and then stick by them is entirely the point of GamingGate, isn't it?
	But the part of then stick by them is the part that we seem to have a disagreement.
	Well, okay, but what have they done wrong?
	Nathan Grayson is disclosing his conflicts of interest, for Christ's sake.
	They're actually doing it.
	Leigh Alexander is begrudgingly disclosing her conflicts of interest.
	So, I mean, what else are we meant to do?
	They're still pushing the same narrative.
	They're still pushing the same ideology.
	That has not changed.
	And to put it to you simply, all of these people, at least I personally believe that corruption is embedded into their ideology.
	You see, it's not that they don't know that they're not being ethical.
	It's that they have no interest in.
	To them, there's no conflict of interest.
	There's no problem with promoting first, let's say, a minority indie game developer because they're helping the industry in their eyes.
	These people are fundamentally incompatible with ethics.
	And once again, I would never be as bold to claim that sites like Kotaku or Polygon are now ethical.
	Even if they write a little, you know, codes of ethics and they write it, the people on top who are meant to enforce it, they're not really going to enforce it when things come, you know, because we've seen that.
	We've seen that.
	This is why they have to be paid attention to constantly almost.
	This is why GameGate has to take the position of a consumer watchdog.
	But claiming victory seems to be a little premature.
	That's absolutely a victory.
	I didn't say the war was over, but that was a battle one.
	Excuse me.
	You did say that Gamergate has achieved all of its objective, or most of them.
	You said that multiple times in all three videos, and I fundamentally disagree.
	Well, okay, we'll disagree then.
	Okay.
	That's, you know, what do you want me to say?
	I think that if as judging by objective ethical, like the ethical goals that GameGate was looking for, I think that they've achieved that.
	I don't see a problem with what Gamergate has achieved.
	That's all.
	Now, I'm not saying that the war against social justice is over.
	Of course it's not.
	But they're one and the same.
	No, they're not.
	That's the thing.
	Yes, they are.
	No, they're not.
	That's like saying the Battle of the Bulge was World War fucking...
	I can't even remember which World War it was now.
	But that's like saying fucking the Battle of Canne was the entire Punic War.
	Do you believe social justice warriors can become ethical?
	Right.
	Do you believe that?
	Hang on.
	I think that what you need to do is think about what you mean by ethical, right?
	Now, if they are going to abide by the codes of ethics that their websites have, if that is the definition you're using of ethical, then yes, I think they will abide by those codes of ethics.
	And I think they will do it very begrudgingly.
	But do I think that they're good people?
	No, of course I fucking don't.
	Nothing to do with good people or bad people.
	Well, what I believe is that these people fundamentally are not compatible with the idea of ethics.
	And even if they do apply some little code of ethics, it'll just be used as a facade or some way to cover their tracks.
	These people want to push their ideology and they want to push their friends.
	I don't think that those people can become ethical just because they write a little code.
	Like if you look at, for example, when Stephen Toto talked to Total Biscuit, for example, and Total Biscuit was just, he completely went from what Patricia Hernandez did was really wrong to just an apology.
	He was fundamentally against that.
	You can't fix that.
	I think the only solution is not to look for people to try to update little ethics codes because they're going to do the same thing behind your backs.
	They've already lost the trust of the consumer.
	They've proven they're not below that.
	The way to fix it is you burn it all to the ground and you build new media.
	Actual new media.
	Not old media that updates a little code of ethics.
	New media.
	But what do you think that Anthony Volves?
	Do you think that we should gather a mob and storm Gorka?
	No, obviously not.
	I think you need to continue.
	Go ahead.
	Sorry, well, this, this, no, no, you, go ahead.
	We need to continue on.
	No, I'm not saying you need to storm the walls of Gawker.
	What I am saying is that you need to continue to point out that they're pushing ideologies, stop concentrating on who uploaded what code of ethics and build new media and promote new media, actual new media, not old media that simply goes, oh, we're good now because we retracted this or because we said this.
	For example, Ian Miles Chung, was an editor-in-chief of GamerX.
	I don't believe that just because he did a quote-unquote apology, that he's now to be taken seriously or his site is to be taken seriously.
	Because again, if you go on his site, for example, and you look for an article about GTA 5 and use the word transphobia, you'll still find that stuff there.
	And no retraction has been omitted, at least the last time I checked.
	I don't think these people are to be trusted.
	I don't care if they update their little codes of ethics because it's been proven that these people will fucking do it anyway.
	The only reason we caught them is because they were lazy and was out in the open.
	They're not going to go, oh, we have to be ethical now.
	They're just going to go, we need to find new ways to do this without people realizing or being able to pin it on us.
	Yeah, but don't you think that focusing on ethics gives us a way to gives us a stick to beat them with next time they do something?
	No, I just think it's more of a PR concentration, to be honest.
	I disagree, man.
	I don't even think you understand how you're going to attack them in the public sphere.
	I understand that we need to build new media rather than trying to fix old broken media.
	I agree.
	I'm actually a big supporter of TechRaptor.
	I'm actually thinking about backing more Patreon.
	And I don't back anyone on Patreon because I don't like the idea of conflicts of interest.
	And I think that's ultimately the reason I haven't backed TechRaptor at this point.
	I really would like to, but I just don't think it's a good idea as an aspiring developer to do so.
	But I personally think that almost all game sites should probably be funded in some method like Patreon.
	I mean, AdSense is killing the advertising revenue they're getting, and they know it.
	So there have got to be new models for this.
	And I think that TechRaptor and Patreon are a great way to do it.
	I don't see and the great thing about this as well is that it puts the financial interest in the sphere of dealing with the people who you're serving rather than dealing with the companies who are paying to advertise on your site.
	I think it's a great model.
	I agree.
	My stance on Patreon is similar to yours.
	As long as they don't charge.
	My stance on Patreon is this.
	The idea of what Patreon was to begin with was a way to support people who are creating free content and a way to put the power back into the hands of the consumer and then for them to decide what the content is worth.
	I don't agree with people who already make money off of their content having a Patreon as well.
	But I do agree with your stance.
	I think that if these sites abandon things like monetization through ads and go exclusively through Patreon, I think that would be a great thing.
	It's putting the power back into the hands of the consumer.
	I couldn't agree more.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I mean, I don't think ads are inherently evil, but I do think that they can.
	I mean, we know in gaming, they absolutely can be a source of issue.
	I'm not saying they're evil.
	I'm just saying that it's like you're a lemonade salesman and you're selling lemonade, and then you're going to the corner and telling people, give me money to sell more lemonade.
	Well, use the money you just made.
	It should be, I'm giving lemonade away for free.
	What do you think about it?
	Do you want me to keep making lemonade?
	Okay, give me some money.
	Here you go.
	Yeah, no, no, I understand what you're saying.
	Okay, but the thing is, this doesn't give us any license to sort of tear down their media.
	We have to wait for the free market to take effect.
	Yeah, exactly.
	We do have to wait for the free market.
	And until that happens.
	I've not seen what's happening to Gawker.
	It's happening, man.
	I mean, GameGigs already cost them a million dollars plus.
	And Gawker is going down, man.
	You know, it's just a matter of time.
	I'm going to wait to comment on that because I think it's been greatly exaggerated, especially Gamergates.
	It probably has.
	Actual impact.
	It probably has.
	Because to be honest, a lot of people keep saying we've cost Gawker $7 million, and the source was Nick Denton.
	Yeah, excuse me, seven figures.
	And the source is Nick Denton's offhand comet.
	But one thing cannot be argued about Gawker.
	Gawker, despite them being disgusting, horrible, fucking morally bankrupt people, they're good business.
	They've built a pretty solid business from the ground up if you look at it from a business perspective.
	To say that Gamergate has cost, for example, Kotaku a lot of money is an exaggeration because you have not seen any business practice that reflects that.
	If a company is hemorrhaging money, you start firing employees, you do something, you change the narrative.
	Unless not you, obviously, but unless the people who claim this are stating that these people are just idologs and they'll die, all of them with their ideology, which completely contradicts Gawker's history.
	They're a good business.
	They've made a lot of money and grown from the ground up.
	And secondly, Kotaku's traffic is up.
	Just in July, I did a video about this.
	July 1st, Kotaku's number four, and I linked there, according to the not according, excuse me, but they're number four in gaming website traffic behind GameSpot, GameFAX, and IGN, companies that are much larger and they shouldn't even be able to compete with.
	So again, if we've done our job and they're dying, why is it that they have more people looking at them?
	Look, Kotaku is a clickbait science.
	Sorry.
	Hello?
	Yeah, sorry, I clear my throat.
	Look, Gorka specializes in clickbait.
	There's nothing you can do about that.
	And there's no way that they won't get clicks.
	They know what's alright to get idiots to share and to click on what they're doing.
	There's nothing we can change about that.
	We can beat them with a giant fucking stick whenever they violate their own code of ethics.
	What do you mean?
	You mean beat them with a big stick and shoulder public and shoulder?
	It was not Gamergate that caused damage the second time around.
	It was the social justice warriors themselves.
	Yeah, so they can't claim their own.
	Hang on a minute, man.
	Hang on.
	Sorry.
	Sorry for interjecting.
	This is Seattle Truth, someone who demanded I face my accusers, and that's why I've got him in.
	Oh, if he has something to accuse you with, and you can have a conversation with him.
	I'll wait.
	Okay, Seattle Truth, do you have anything you particularly want to say?
	Yeah, well, first of all, I'm not the one that's been doing the digging here.
	I just read the thread on it today.
	I did accuse you of some things on Twitter, I believe.
	I'm not sure what my exact accusations were.
	I believe I called you a fraud.
	Okay.
	So let's go over some of these accusations.
	So, first of all, was your game development company, which you were a development for, legally dissolved before you held the Kickstarter for said company?
	No, that happened afterwards.
	It happened afterwards.
	Do you want to know how these things work in British law?
	Yes.
	Can I interject real quick?
	Can I interject?
	Seattle, with all due respect to you, if we're going to go over the things that I wrote, shouldn't I be the one asking them?
	Yes, you should.
	I didn't know that you're Verilo.
	I definitely agree.
	You should be the one.
	So I think you should hash out whatever issue you have with Sargon that is separate from me, and then I'll.
	No, no, no.
	Well, I didn't have.
	Well, I do have some personal questions for them.
	And I think that's a better way of addressing it.
	Because I don't want to address your work.
	You're the best one to address.
	Should we go over the personal questions first, then?
	Sure.
	Well, first of all, I wanted to say that it was your initial videos on the Digra research that was really an inspiration for me to start looking into that and digging into that.
	And that was kind of like, like I said, the inspiration for what became that three-hour plus documentary thing that I released that hasn't exactly been received that way.
	Right, okay.
	Okay, I actually have some criticisms of that.
	I think that some of your connections are a bit tenuous, to be honest.
	Right.
	Okay.
	And we could go over some of that too, if you would like.
	We can.
	I don't think we should do it now, but I think it might be worth doing at some point.
	Yeah, because I have a lot of questions about why you were so interested in Digra to start with.
	And then everything I needed back to the Digra.
	I got everything I needed from them.
	Oh, that was the only background that was involved in the gamification of education?
	I don't know about the gamification of education, and I'm not sure it's specifically tied to the issue at hand.
	I was more interested in the Digra member Adrian Shaw writing the Gamers of Dead article, which was then, I think, misappropriated.
	Okay, so you think you thought at the time that it was Digra that was behind the Gamers Are Dead articles?
	No, no, hang on.
	The intellectual ammunition for the Gamers of Dead articles were Adrian Shaw's Do You Want to Be a Gamer?
	Or do you identify as a Gamer article?
	But the thing is, I don't think Dan Golding has used this correctly.
	And I would have thought that Adrian Shaw would come out and say, hey, look, this is not what I'm saying in my study, because it's not.
	But she hasn't for whatever reason, probably because it advances her agenda.
	So you don't think.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	So basically, I this is the reason.
	Adrian Shaw, the Digra member who was at the Playfulest Political pushing feminism as a gaming, wrote an article that Dan Golding misappropriated for his article to claim that that proves that gamers as a demographic legal are over.
	And this Tumblr post was then linked in, I think, half of the Gamers are dead articles.
	That's the connection between the Gamers and Dead and Digra.
	What more needs to be done?
	I went to the trouble of showing that Diagra is an organization with extremely, extremely feminist ideological leanings.
	So what needs to be done there?
	I mean, I don't see people talking about Digra in a positive way.
	Well, actually, I would actually disagree with that, and I would actually stick up for Digra.
	And they're not perfect, and there are some leftist individuals in that group.
	But from my research, Digra, in and of itself, has just been doing their job and been doing games research.
	And some of it might be politicized.
	I haven't seen a whole lot of that.
	Even when their studies came out that you think they would be the politicized issue, the Digra studies came out and said that, what was it, that gamers don't cause sexism?
	Was that a Digra study?
	I believe it was.
	I'd need to see it.
	I can't remember which one that is off the top of my head, I'm afraid.
	Yeah, that was a few months ago, like six, no, five months ago, maybe.
	Yeah, I believe that was a Digra study, though, but yeah, I can't guarantee that off the top of my head.
	I'd be impressed because I've seen a lot of the ideological stuff from Daiger that says the complete opposite.
	I mean, there's a paper on Digra's website that suggests that in Brazil, sexism and racism have become invisible.
	it's very difficult to spot them because, and it might well be that they don't exist, but they've become...
	But see, the thing is...
	It's that kind of ideological infestation that I have a problem with.
	Right, but it might not be that.
	The thing with Digra is it's not a total infestation and they're not totally doing bad things.
	They're just doing their job.
	But they're not the final boss in this gamification battle.
	They're only one arm.
	They're only the research arm and they're only one of the research arms.
	They have the MacArthur Foundation, they have Microsoft Research doing it, and they have MacArthur Foundation, which Jonathan McIntosh has been working with since 2007, which his mentor, like which McIntosh has been tweeting about her work regarding this issue.
	Well, not this exact issue, but he retweeted her work regarding these issues, says that games do not cause anti-social behavior.
	But what is the problem?
	Which goes against the people.
	Well, no, that's the exact thing.
	They're not breaking any laws because it's just unethical propaganda.
	And MacArthur Foundation has been guilty of that in the past as well.
	And this is something I'm going to cover in my next documentary, but I'm just going to drop it now because what the heck.
	But MacArthur Foundation was backing Leland Yee, which was the anti-games senator in California who was partnered with Anita Sarkeesian at a later date.
	But in 2010, he was working with the founder of Common Sense Media, who was running an initiative, a lobbying effort to ban violent games to youth in California.
	And the logic behind it, his exact rhetoric was that games cause kids to be violent, which goes to an exact contradiction to what Mimi Ito's research, which is a head researcher at MacArthur Foundation, said.
	But guess what?
	I have proof of that MacArthur was one of the largest backers of that initiative.
	They were caught pushing a false premises in 2010 when they tried to ban it outright through law.
	And when that lobbying effort failed, they turned to their 401k organizations that they just decided to start with the guidance of the Brookings Institution, which probably thought it up.
	Okay.
	With the H-1B fake crisis that they instigated in the past, that we have smoking gun evidence of them admitting to creating a false crisis in the past.
	And they did this handy game in Game Gate.
	I'm not saying that any of this is not true.
	I don't know whether it's true or not.
	So that's not really something I can comment on.
	These are your assertions.
	You're not giving me anything off the top of my head, and I'm sure it would take, did you not?
	I mean, that conference was not.
	I watched about 45 minutes of it.
	It did not cover this new stuff that I'm talking about.
	I have a lot of new stuff.
	I'm sorry, can I cut in?
	Hang on a second, man.
	Hang on.
	Let me.
	The point is, though, what here is actually illegal?
	What here can we say this is a genuine issue that they have transgressed on?
	What can we do?
	Well, that's the problem here, Sargon.
	It's not all just about ethical codes.
	It doesn't fix everything.
	And not everything has to be illegal for it to be wrong.
	Trying to subject them.
	I thought it was social justice warrior propaganda to indoctrinate them, to create an army of everlasting social justice.
	Okay, wait, wait, wait.
	Seattle, can I cut in here?
	Excuse me.
	Nick, can I cut in?
	Okay, I get that you guys have your issues, but and again, with all due respect to Sargon as the host and to you, Seattle, I don't know you, Seattle, and this kind of you know, this whole stream, I think I thought the point was to face quote-unquote accusations on my article.
	Right, right.
	And we'll get to that, but you just wanted me to do that.
	I just think that I should be separate from you, because I don't know you, and it's starting to become complex.
	Oh, no, no, okay.
	Our things are totally separate.
	Maybe you should come on a separate stream, is my opinion.
	Okay, well, I'll leave in a second, but let me just.
	Hang on then.
	See, if you just want to let me have the discussion with Varilo, afterwards, we can discuss what you're going over, okay?
	Okay, could I just make one claim here?
	I just wanted to say that we both were accusing him of flip-flopping on the history.
	No, I do not speak for you, and I do not claim to.
	In your narrative, don't include.
	Okay, let me just say something to you, Mr. Verlo, because I respect you very much.
	Before this, this I tried to arrange with Sargon for you to come on, and I didn't even want it to come on.
	But he said that he would rather speak to me for some reason, so I said that I wasn't going to back down.
	So I didn't even want to come on the screen because it's your issues, and it's your accusations.
	So I'll give it for you.
	I don't know and no concern myself with what transpired between you two.
	I just don't want our views to be conflated.
	No disrespect to you.
	No, I totally understand.
	So I'll give the floor to you, buddy.
	Okay.
	Okay, then, Varilo, let's go through your concerns.
	Okay, to sum up the whole argument that we were having, having, here's what I believe.
	I believe that in the beginning, you were one of the people talking about how SJWs are the ones or are one of the root causes for this entire thing and how they need to be fought.
	And I think that you've strayed away from that.
	Whether that's true or not, not just your viewers, but the readers of the articles can determine that.
	They can go to your videos and look at how you used to handle things six, seven months ago and how you handle them now.
	And they can decide if I'm full of it or if you're right or if I have a point.
	Yeah, so I have deliberately changed how I deal with Gamergate issues.
	Okay.
	Deliberately.
	This isn't something I'm not aware of.
	This is entirely on purpose because ultimately we can't win any Gamergate victories by fighting ideologies.
	I disagree.
	No, no, but we can't lose if we focus on ethics.
	I disagree on that too.
	We can't lose.
	What are they going to say?
	We don't want to be ethical?
	What can they say?
	I think if you play their game with their rules on their platform, I think you're just destined to lose.
	It's kind of like arguing with an idiot.
	They're going to beat you by experience if you go down.
	That's the reason why I don't think we should go down the road of identity politics.
	But it's not a going down the road of identity politics.
	It's pointing out these people are pushing this agenda.
	It's garbage.
	Look who they are.
	We have other sites that don't push this agenda.
	It's not, well, if you just put in a code of ethics, everything's going to be hunky dunk.
	You're a misogynist.
	Okay.
	That's fine.
	Exactly.
	That's my point.
	You've got no answer to that.
	And that's what I don't need one.
	I don't need an answer.
	You don't think you do, but people on the- No, we don't.
	That's the PR talking.
	That's how we look to the public.
	Sargon, we're never going to look good to the public.
	You're always going to be misogynist.
	I'm not looking good to the public, right?
	It's about the direct issue that we are discussing at the time.
	If you say, I don't like the way you think, I don't like that.
	Let me finish, right?
	I don't like you're a feminist.
	I don't like your feminist agenda.
	Then they will turn around and go, yeah, but you're a misogynist.
	And then from someone from the outside, let's be like, Jesus.
	All right.
	And, you know, I'm not even interested.
	They don't care, right?
	It's just not something they are going to pay attention to.
	They see it as a bickering slap fight on the internet.
	And like, what do I care?
	But if you say, you have violated a code of ethics here that you claim to stand by, then people automatically take an interest.
	It's a corruption scandal, then.
	People care about that, man.
	It's not about PR.
	It's about getting people to fucking listen.
	That's the definition of PR.
	But the whole thing.
	No, no, no.
	It's not the definition of PR.
	Yes, it is.
	No, wait a minute.
	Let me get my argument because I heard yours.
	Getting people to listen.
	Public relations is getting to think well of you.
	Fuck getting to think well of you.
	I just want them to listen to what's going on.
	Of course.
	Here's the thing.
	You're saying we don't have a response to that.
	When you claim, oh, it's about ethics, they're still going to say you're a misogynist.
	And people are still going to see that.
	Yes.
	And they're still going to think it's a slap fight because they still don't.
	They're still going to think it's more.
	It's ridiculous.
	They're still going.
	Again, they're still going to say the exact same thing, and the public is going to look at it in the exact same way.
	You have to go, they violate, you know, they're unethical.
	They have bad practices.
	And here's why.
	You can't just go, oh, code of ethics, bad.
	You know, they violated this code of ethics, that bad.
	Then they just have to go, oh, I'm sorry, I did it.
	My bad.
	And they can continue pushing their ideology.
	I mean, these codes of ethics, they don't stop things.
	For example, let's say a journalist A is friends with Dev A, with Dev B, excuse me, oh, dev one.
	Let's use it like that.
	Journalist A is friends with dev one.
	Instead of him just writing a fluff piece and then people finding out, oh, you're friends with him, he'll just tell journalist B, who's his friend and is pushing the same ideology, hey, can you push this guy?
	And there's no longer a violation of ethics that you can point to, is there?
	Because the problem is not just the code of ethics.
	It's both.
	The difference between the people who articulate something happens.
	Because again, do you trust these people now that they have code of ethics?
	I don't.
	And I think that both conversations should happen.
	And I'm against the people who are pushing the idea that you can only talk about ethics and the tag.
	And by you saying, oh, it's just about ethics, you're assisting with that.
	And I'm not the first person to tell you that.
	Listen, right?
	I can't stop anyone from using the GameGate hashtag.
	So all I can do is give you my opinion.
	That's all I can do.
	Now, I'm kind of, I'm getting sick of you guys, and you know who you are, saying, oh, my God, they're censoring the tag.
	How could I do that?
	How could I censor GameGate?
	How could I do that?
	Well, are you leveling that against me or against the random you?
	Against the, well, you know that you do represent people who are saying exactly what you say.
	No, I don't represent anyone.
	I speak for myself.
	That's the point.
	This is an opinion that is not just shared by you, though.
	That's the point.
	I still don't speak for them because my answer is still to them as well, though, isn't it?
	Then let them answer you.
	That's fine.
	But the point, and it's still to your point, is that you can do whatever you want.
	All I'm saying is that it is tactically bad.
	And I'm saying that I fundamentally disagree.
	In fact, it will actually blow up in your face, which is why I have changed my tag.
	Do you see?
	But I mean, of course you don't.
	You guys are not.
	No, that's what I'm not condescending in.
	Well, I'm sorry, but at the end of the day, I don't know how else to explain.
	No, no, I'm fine with it.
	Just remember it while this continues.
	Okay, that's fine.
	But the point is, you want something to happen, right?
	You want something to be done about, say, Nathan Grayson and Stephen Statillo.
	I want that too, right?
	But we can't just say, look, they're social justice warriors.
	That is not going to make anything happen.
	Agreed.
	And as soon as we say that, anyone outside of the issue who might take an interest in the issue...
	I'm a social justice warrior.
	That's the question they ask.
	No, no.
	No, they don't.
	They just go, I don't care.
	You have very little faith in people, man.
	I think I'm quite realistic about what they act like.
	I've spoken to quite a few people who's just like, well, I just don't really care about the issue.
	Well, you think they'll care when it's just my ethics?
	Well, I think people care when they're not.
	I mean, it's totally totally like scandals.
	I really do.
	Well, I think that Gamergate has, statistically speaking, gotten a lot smaller throughout this year.
	And the more we've adopted this ethics-only policy, the less people are listening.
	So, you know, if you want to say that ethics only is the way, that's fine, man.
	But I'm saying that it doesn't look like that.
	Why is Kittahka actually grown by 10,000 people in the last few months?
	Well, again, the boards seem to be down.
	The active users everywhere seem to be down.
	The tweets with Gamergate seem to be down.
	What is this growth you're speaking of?
	Okay, Hannah.
	I'm not surprised the tweets are down.
	Okay.
	I'm absolutely not surprised.
	I mean, for example, there are 47,500 people now subscribed to Kataka Nax.
	That doesn't mean they use it.
	I'm subscribed there and I haven't used that site in eight.
	I haven't used that subreddit in eight months.
	Yeah, but it does kind of declare that you're interested in the subject, doesn't it?
	So we're going with, oh, I'm subbed.
	That means that it's interest.
	That's what we're going with, really?
	I prefer people who are doing stuff.
	Okay.
	Not a number.
	Okay.
	That's your preference.
	What do you want me to say?
	I don't know.
	You just prefer it.
	So look, look, man, right?
	You can only carry on with this sort of level of energy for so long.
	This is why on Twitter, it's died down to sort of a background buzz.
	It's died down because people have forced one narrative over the other and have said, you can't talk about this.
	And you said, and not you, excuse me.
	And have said, no, this is only about ethics.
	Go away.
	And the people who had their initial interest and ripping the problem from the source, those people have left.
	It's not just lack of energy.
	It's bad management.
	It's a hashtag.
	So I'm not surprised it's being poorly managed.
	Well, again, when people are stating that you can't say, people who have the most followings and the biggest people say this is what you have to talk about.
	Unfortunately, because of the cult of personality, whether that person be right or wrong, they're going to listen to them.
	I'm not declaring what other people must talk about.
	I'm saying that what I'm going to talk about.
	And when it comes to Gamergate, I'm going to talk about violations of journalistic ethics because that is something that my opponents can't refute.
	Okay.
	When it comes to the article, all I said is that that's not what you initially were about and you just confirmed it.
	So there's no reason to bicker.
	I've changed my tactics and my strategy on this.
	Okay.
	There was no reason to bicker about that.
	Let's move on.
	Okay.
	So what else?
	So what else is in there that you'd like to address?
	Again, I'm not the one who has to do the addressing, Sargon.
	You read it.
	You seem to disagree with everything there.
	And so just tell me what you would like to address.
	Again, it's for my listeners as much as anyone else.
	Well, I think your listeners should go and read it.
	But again, there's more claims on the YouTube side.
	Okay, well, let's go through those.
	Okay.
	Do you disagree with anything there to begin with?
	Well, just make the claims and I'll address them.
	I stated that when the AJSA situation happened, the censoring of Gamergate, The whole shitstorm that happened with the AJSA, and the subsequent fallout with Angry Joe.
	When all that situation happened, you had a commander by the name of Damien Rain here on your channel.
	By the way, someone who has since been banned from the AJSA.
	Damien Rain has been banned from the AJSA?
	Yes, sir.
	It's in the article.
	I thought you read it.
	Well, look, man, I read it about seven o'clock this morning when I was in bed.
	So this is why I'm asking you to tell me what exactly your points are so I don't miss anything.
	Okay.
	I'll have to check with him to see if what you're saying is correct.
	Okay.
	The sources are there if you need them.
	So Mr. Damien Ring was brought here to explain the situation, a situation that you reduced to simply the bickering between him and Vimonro.
	Whether ignorance, malice, or whatever, I don't speculate a motive.
	I think you simply didn't know personally.
	Sorry, Sanghan, what didn't I know?
	You didn't know the whole situation.
	What was going on with the AJSA was not Vimonro's video, that he apologized, despite the fact that he was right.
	And that I had proof backing him up because on the forums he was talking about, I actually interviewed the people involved and showed the conversations they had and that was there.
	When you brought on Damien Rain to simply, what I called in, I believe I called it in the article, do a fluff piece, and I'll say that to your face, to do a fluff piece about the AJSA and simply said all is well.
	What is the AJSA about?
	You helped not talk about the actual concerns and issues that were there that were plentiful.
	That's another thing I point out.
	I'm concerned about your suggestion of censorship on the AJSA forums.
	Go ahead.
	As I understand it, they had a Gamergate thread that was open for months.
	Is that not correct?
	I believe, I don't know the exact time frame, but I believe that is correct.
	So, I mean, that seems like they weren't censoring discussion of GameGates.
	When you close down said forums and banned people for being pro-GG, that is the definition of censorship.
	Isn't that the exact same thing that happened in all these other?
	People were being banned for being pro-GG.
	I fundamentally disagree, and I have the evidence to prove it.
	Okay, well, okay.
	And as I understand it, the thread had gone on for a long time and had effectively degenerated into a point where no further useful information was being given.
	And so they decided to close it.
	Users in that STEM forum claim that is a lie.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm not, I don't know, but I'm just saying that I don't particularly agree with even locking the thread.
	I would just let it peter out into whatever bullshit, but that's not my forum.
	So I don't make that call.
	But I think leaving the thread open for months, you know, I think that kind of speaks to.
	Sargon, censorship doesn't have a timeframe.
	If you leave it open for X amount of months and then close it, it's still censorship.
	I don't know what your argument is.
	I don't think it is censorship, man.
	I think it's censorship when you're not allowed to discuss something.
	You're not allowed to discuss something.
	That's why they closed the thread.
	The first thing they did is they closed any replica thread and they merged it all together into one big GG thread.
	And then they closed that and banned any conversation of GG.
	Yeah, that's the exact same thing.
	It's been long enough that it's been open that the issues can be discussed.
	Three months.
	People should be able to discuss whatever they want, whenever they want, on a community that is supposedly made for them.
	What is your claim?
	My claim is that it's actually a private community and they can administer it as they want.
	Absolutely, they can, but when they specifically state in their mission statement and in their rules that they're a community for you and we are interested in what you want to discuss, they're lying.
	And all I did was point that out.
	They have the legal right to do whatever they want.
	I'm not sure what to be.
	So did Reddit.
	So did all of these other sites that censored Gamergate.
	They had the legal right to do it.
	There's a great difference between how Reddit listen, right?
	There's a big difference between how Reddit and 4chan did it and how the Angry Joe army did it, right?
	They didn't allow three months worth of discussion prior.
	Okay?
	That's the issue.
	After a long enough, yeah, they can be like, look, we just don't think this is going anywhere.
	We're going to close this thread.
	You've had plenty of time to hash out your issues, you know, and we didn't want it polluting the rest of the forums.
	We just wanted the discussion here.
	I don't think that's unreasonable.
	I think that when you have a platform that, because for example, if they were to ban right now if they would have closed down the Kataqua in action subreddit, you'd be fine with that under this logic, correct?
	If they were to go and ban it, there's no problem about that.
	Hell, the whole thing that happened with subreddits is entirely devoted to Gamergate.
	Let me finish the point.
	If they go ahead, the whole Reddit revolt thing where they close all of those subreddits, hey, they were out for a long time, so that's not censorship.
	That was correct, too.
	That's what you're saying, right?
	How is it different, Sargon?
	Explain instead of just condescendingly laughing.
	It's different because the AJSA isn't a place to debate these things.
	Yes, it is.
	No, it's not.
	It's a gaming forum.
	Excuse me.
	In their forums, I don't know if you're familiar with the rules, and it seems to me that you're not familiar with the issue itself, which is what I took issue with you bringing forth a specific person to present a specific narrative without being aware of the entirety of the thing, which you clearly are not.
	In their rules, they state they're a community for the gamer to talk about anything gaming related, anything, and that they're a community about you, the user.
	They have no agenda, they're not pushing anything, that you can talk whatever about whatever you want.
	They fundamentally violated their own rule.
	From a legal standpoint, they had the same right as Reddit does of closing certain subreddits and forums.
	They have the same right.
	It's the same case.
	Just for some reason, we didn't have the conversation about the AJSA, but we did have the conversation about other sites.
	Okay.
	And what I'm presenting to you, because that has nothing to do with you, what I'm presenting to you specifically is that you helped push a narrative without being aware of the entirety of the situation.
	And it seems that claim is factual.
	Well, I think that what you're doing is taking this example and taking it out of the context that it was in.
	That was not Reddit, right?
	Reddit prides themselves on being an open platform for discussion.
	Well, I disagree.
	I think they're gaming forums.
	Well, again, it's not agreement or disagreement.
	It's facts.
	I suggest you go read their rules.
	Yeah, but I think fundamentally their mission statement is different to Reddit.
	The mission statement is to talk about and represent gamers in whatever they want to talk about.
	I don't see how you can go from that to talk whatever is interesting to gamers.
	This is your forum.
	You do whatever you want.
	The same thing Reddit says, by the way.
	But at the end of the day, it's really immaterial to me.
	I'm not that bothered if you have an issue with the AGS.
	It's not that I have an issue.
	It's the same issues that Gamergate was tackling at the beginning, just we decided not to talk about this one.
	And as I said, your opinion on it is inconsequential to me.
	What I'm presenting at your feet is that you helped push a narrative and you helped push an idea that everything was hunky-dory and you didn't do your due diligence and you didn't do the research and you just took the word or the situation with one person and turned that into the entire discussion.
	That's what I'm presenting to you.
	You disagree.
	I was aware of your.
	No, I disagree completely.
	I'm fully aware of who you were before I had the interview with them.
	I'm aware.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And I disagree with you.
	I think.
	Did you watch the entire playlist real quick?
	No, I didn't watch the entire playlist.
	So how do you disagree with me if you don't know my claims?
	Because you've just made them and I disagree.
	I haven't made four and a half hours claims here, Sargon.
	Okay, but you can sum them up into what you're saying now, can't you?
	Surely.
	Listen.
	Okay.
	So you disagree with me, so you decided to just visit one site.
	Sorry, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	I think it was actually surprisingly open-minded of the AJSA to allow this conversation to have taken place at all.
	Okay.
	I think, given what I know of Angry Joe as well and the circles he travels in, I think it's actually very open-minded of these people to have allowed any kind of debate on Gamergate on their forums at all.
	And I don't think we need to beat them with the same stick that we can beat Reddit with because they are not as Reddit is.
	They are not as 4chan is.
	They are a gaming community.
	They didn't have to host any of this.
	Okay.
	So if you disagree, then disagree, man.
	If you think, well, I'm not holding them to their own mission statement accurately or stringently enough, then think that.
	But I don't think that we need to be.
	And I think, honestly, you probably run the risk of exiling a lot of people from the discussion who may well be on your side because of this hardline stance.
	Because of what, excuse me?
	Because of your hardline stance on this.
	It's not really a hardline stance.
	So people were banned, still are being banned, might I add.
	You know, after Mr. Damon Rain, the pro Gamergate commander that you brought on here that Bimonro prides himself of converting, after that guy was on here and all that shit happened, they were still being censored.
	They were still being banned because GG.
	They called on that thread, and you can go read it.
	You can go to that thread and you can watch how they said that things like Kotaku in Action, which you pride yourself in saying is the hub of Gamergate, was propaganda.
	So, you know what, man, we can disagree on whatever you say is minutiae.
	I think that people being banned from forums and not being able to speak their mind and not be able to talk about something is the key component of what started this whole thing to begin with.
	If you want to say that Reddit and this site are different in some way when they legally have the same right to close whatever they want, you go ahead.
	I'm telling you that you're wrong.
	And whatever the case, even if we disagree, you presented one side of the narrative and not the other.
	And even if you disagree with the second side, it was your duty to present it.
	You have a duty to your audience to show them the entirety despite what your personal beliefs are.
	That's what I'm calling out.
	You're accurately representing the situation, to be honest.
	Okay, what am I not representing?
	Go ahead.
	Well, we've just been through it.
	But anyway, we understand that you think that I'm not being hard enough on the AJSA.
	That's fine.
	My claim specifically and I'll repeat it for the sixth time was that you did not present both sides of the narrative And you just admitted that you knew my I thought it was because you didn't know And you just admitted that you knew.
	You just voluntarily took a choice not to present the accurate what was actually going on.
	But the thing is, I don't think that what you're saying is necessarily accurate.
	Can you disprove anything I've said?
	Well, not off the top of my head, no.
	Well, then when you can, come back to me.
	Well, then, okay, fine.
	Let's move on to the next bit then, shall we?
	Go ahead.
	Well, no, you go ahead.
	It's your accusations.
	So that's the end of the YouTube section.
	Yes, that's the end of the YouTube section.
	Okay, let's move on to the next bit then.
	Okay, so in the next part, I talk about, well, can I use your real name?
	If you want.
	I talk about Coward Benjamin, the game developer, and make the distinction that, you know, your Sargon persona and Carl Benjamin are two different people.
	They're actually a lot closer than you might think.
	I'm not saying that they're different in that sense.
	I'm just saying that you were someone before Sauron of Akkad.
	You're not just the...
	I'm still the same person.
	Yeah, okay, well.
	So what I specifically present is I talk about in detail your Kickstarter necromancer for the Project Necromancer.
	And I point out a couple of things about it.
	I did this to Yuji Nakajima about SJW Wright as well.
	I interviewed him.
	I talked to him about it while it was ongoing.
	And I pointed out the things in that article that I thought were incorrect.
	Because as consumers, it's our duty to do that, okay?
	And I state that because, again, this is all seeming like...
	This is why I've got you on this thread now.
	It's fine.
	Okay.
	So, no, it's just some people, I'm not saying you, but some people seem to think that I'm just, this is a hit piece and accusations are there to hurt.
	I'm just pointing out things that seem to be questionable in my regard.
	And I'm here to face you.
	I think a lot of people have taken it directly as accusation.
	I mean, people on Twitter definitely tweeting Andrew.
	How do you take it?
	Honestly, I just think that you don't really know why any of these things are as they are.
	But I'll tell you.
	It's fine.
	We're about to find out.
	So the Kickstarter itself, I state the facts.
	You asked for 8,000 British pounds, which is about $12,000, approximately.
	I don't know the exact conversion rate.
	It's about $12,000.
	And I stated that I had certain concerns with this Kickstarter itself.
	I did the same as Yuji Nakajima.
	Nobody had a problem.
	What are the some of the concerns?
	I didn't just have interest.
	No, I didn't back you.
	Okay.
	I was unaware.
	I would have if I would have known about the actual situation.
	Does that make my claims any less valid?
	No, not at all.
	I just think it's important that people are aware.
	This is a backer concern or the press is just independent concern.
	Okay.
	It's an independent concern for full disclosure.
	I do say I would have backed it if I would have known.
	Now, the game itself, first of all, you asked for a certain amount of money.
	I have a very specific stance on Kickstarters.
	Okay, so I have to explain that before I get into this.
	I believe that when it comes to, I don't like Kickstarter to begin with, because I believe, as an indie game developer as well, I believe that the way to approach this is to create content for free and allow people to determine how much you're worth.
	That's why I think things like Patreon were the future before crazy fucking feminists got $14,000 and stuff like that for doing nothing.
	That's just my personal stance.
	You don't have to agree with it.
	That's my stance.
	So I don't like Kickstarter because it's kind of like people buying stock without getting stock.
	It's pretty much just giving money for an idea without actually seeing anything in return.
	In your case, that's not entirely accurate.
	They will be getting a copy of the game.
	Okay, they will be getting a copy of the game.
	I hope they do.
	I really do.
	Okay.
	I never said they wouldn't.
	I just said they haven't.
	And the initial goal was May 2014.
	Yeah.
	So that is a fact.
	You missed the deadline.
	I don't think there's an argument there, right?
	There's no doubt about that, but I can tell you why in a minute.
	Okay, well, we'll get into why.
	I didn't speculate motive.
	That was the whole point.
	I just pointed out that fact.
	The why, that's up to you.
	And you explain that in your updates.
	And you say, with the exception of one that's locked to backers, so I couldn't see that one.
	But you explain it in your updates and so forth.
	Now.
	I didn't actually realize I had a backer-only update.
	There was, I think, the third one.
	Right.
	That was probably my mistake.
	Sorry about that.
	That's okay.
	You have your right to do that.
	I speculated privately that it was you explaining the whole situation and the private of it to your backers, which is okay.
	That's fine.
	You don't have to do that to the public.
	I'm not questioning that.
	So I point out that.
	I point out the fact that it doesn't, in the Kickstarter, there's nothing saying where the money is going.
	Like, how wise this arbitrary amount.
	It doesn't say we're going to be using this amount and this.
	We're going to be using this amount and that.
	There's no breakdown.
	There's none of that.
	Whether that's necessary or not, that's up to every single person.
	That's why I explained my stance on Kickstarter first.
	I believe that if you're going to ask people for money up front, you have to do that.
	You have to tell them this is what we're using it in.
	This is how I justify that amount of money.
	And furthermore, because the Kickstarter, the goal was one month after, because it was funded in April and the estimated delivery was May.
	An estimate can mean maybe two months after tops.
	That's what I personally use.
	So you're asking for $12,000 in a game that's going from one month to another.
	What that tells me is that the game was mostly finished.
	If you put that small of a deadline, it means either you have the game pretty much finished or it's a miscalculation on your part.
	Either one, I'm not speculating.
	Okay, well, I can tell you exactly what's happened here.
	I'm not going to lie, there was a lot of miscalculation on my part.
	As everyone knows, I'm sure this is the first game I've been developing properly.
	And so I was wildly optimistic.
	I won't lie.
	But this situation wasn't helped by our artists quitting directly after the Kickstarter was successful and trying to extort us for money.
	So I became the artist.
	This is one of the primary reasons that there's been such a long delay is that I've been the one making all of the levels and trying to make everything look good.
	And I'm no artist, so I've had to learn a hell of a lot by doing it.
	Are you, I don't know what part of the industry or what industry exactly you work in outside of the indie stuff.
	So I don't know if you've ever held the role of a project manager.
	No, I haven't.
	Okay.
	Well, then let me explain a little bit.
	What a project manager does in essence is that, well, they manage the project.
	And what that means is that they allocate human resources, time, and money.
	That's their main thing, having to manage how everything's going to work.
	What I point out in the article, which I suspect was one of the things some people took issue with, was that if you were to be working as a project manager in any company in the world, and you would have given an estimate, because the project manager is the one who usually decides the estimate, unless the client wants it in a specific amount of time.
	If you could have given an estimate of one month and you would have been 14 months delayed.
	And one of the reasons, because I don't say that that's, I didn't say that was the only reason.
	I say that one of the possible reasons, if you read the article, was the whole debacle with the artist, which I'm sure we'll get into in a moment.
	But if that is the reason, as a project manager and someone who is managing their project, someone who's taking things seriously, you always have to have someone on SpeedDial, the number two person who won in to be that artist.
	I don't know your relationship with this person.
	You claim that you worked with him for two years.
	Yeah, we had working with him for two years.
	So everyone misjudges people, I guess.
	But it came as a massive surprise.
	And frankly, I'm not blaming you for that.
	Yeah, but honestly, right?
	I was actually really, I was really genuinely disappointed in him because we thought we were friends with him.
	So to have him then say, oh, no, we're quitting the project.
	I'm quitting the project and I want you to give me $1,500 or you can't use my models.
	Well, did you have a contract with him?
	I think we did, yeah.
	Because if you did, he can't make demands.
	It's just he can demand whatever you want.
	Take you to court, you have a contract, you're done.
	Yeah, but he lives in Italy, so it's a lot of money, a lot of hassle even, a lot of time.
	But again, that's his problem.
	It is a big user.
	It is.
	So that shouldn't hurt you in any way.
	To screw him.
	And his demand was give me lots of money and I'm quitting the project and you can use the models I've made or you can't use my models.
	And so we don't use his models.
	None of his models are in the current version of the game.
	That doesn't seem to be much of an issue.
	I mean, you have a contract.
	There's nothing really, you know, there wasn't really a problem.
	I don't see it as much of an issue.
	The issue is that he was annoyed that we hadn't given him money.
	But the thing is, we weren't employing him.
	He was a partner in the group.
	So he was part owner of the company?
	Well, that's what we were trying to make him.
	And that was when he quit.
	So just in the interest of pointing that out, he was not at the time of the two years you working with him.
	He was not a partner.
	No, he wasn't a partner.
	That's why we were trying to make him a partner.
	When did you try to start making him a partner?
	Before, you know, one year, at the end of the second year?
	A few months before he quit.
	Okay, so about a year and a half, I would say it would be accurate.
	He was working with four, I don't know, you guys.
	He was working with, not for.
	That's the difference.
	Look, when you have an indie team who are working on a project as a sort of pet project, because everyone has a job.
	That's the difference.
	This isn't like we're not a major game studio.
	There's no fans.
	I'm aware, so I'm an indie game developer too.
	Exactly.
	And I've worked for a small group.
	I sit there and I program in my evenings.
	He sits there and he makes models in his evenings.
	The other guy sits around and he animates the models in the point where we've actually got a product that we can go to Kickstarter with and try and get backing for.
	And we do, and we're successful.
	And then he turns around and says, look, now I just want to quit and take some money and run.
	And so we're like, okay, well, we will just not use your models and use the money to commission other artists to make models that we currently have in there.
	And that should have been done rather quickly, no?
	No, not at all.
	It takes quite a long time to then find new artists and then commission.
	Your game is in Unity, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	The Unity store has a bunch of assets.
	I don't give a fuck what's on the Unity store, man.
	No, but you can give a fuck about the artists who are there.
	There's an entire repertoire of people who have developed art that is used in Unity.
	Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they're open for commission.
	Did you contact them?
	Why would I?
	So because you're looking for a new artist, it seems like a key thing to do.
	Do you think that we just didn't find a new artist or something?
	So you found it off the bat and he's delayed or he or she has been delayed.
	We actually found two artists.
	We have a little open sort of send us examples of your work and we'll commission two people.
	Excellent.
	And you've been delayed for 14 months.
	No, the art's all done now.
	But you have to understand that is a delay.
	But if the delay was just the art and the art is done.
	No, the delay isn't just the art at the moment.
	I'm currently doing bug fixing, which is less sexy.
	And at one point in there, you say that we haven't updated our website for how long?
	The original website, the last update that I saw, the website that was linked to your Kickstarter, might I add, the last update I saw was when the actual Kickstarter was funded.
	Yeah, because the problem we've had with the website is friends of ours who said, oh, well, we'll do a website for you, they've constantly dropped out.
	So we have, in fact, started a new website using WordPress.
	It's otherworldsoftware.com.
	Okay, did you update?
	I would recommend you update that on all the appropriate stuff.
	Excuse me, all the appropriate places.
	Well, okay, but and I was made aware of that.
	That's true.
	I probably should go back and put that in the Kickstarter.
	I just haven't.
	Okay, and how long has that website been there?
	Because I've looking at the archive has been there quite a bit.
	February this year I started it.
	Okay, so maybe at some point you should have updated that so that people watch it.
	And furthermore, that website is just a blog.
	It doesn't contain forums, does it?
	No, it doesn't contain forums.
	Wasn't one of your rewards the specific rank on your quote-unquote forums?
	Absolutely was.
	The forums do no longer exist.
	They do not.
	So that's just, they got that reward for a couple of months and that's it.
	I'm afraid I can't make forums and I don't have the financial resources to pay someone to make forums.
	Then why would you put that as a reward?
	Because at the time, the situation was different.
	Yes, you had a free forum.
	I had someone committed to making the website and then they quit.
	I can't change that.
	So that's a third.
	That's a fourth person who quit.
	No, well, a fourth member, excuse me, who also quit.
	A friend of mine who agreed to do it out of personal interest and then he decided he just wasn't going to do it.
	So he wasn't hired by the company or anything like that.
	He really has no responsibility when it comes to that, does he?
	And maybe that's something that you should have taken care of as someone who's giving a reward of paying.
	Oh, absolutely.
	Okay.
	So, okay.
	Then there's really nothing more to argue in that sense.
	So yeah.
	I'm not by any stretch of the imagination arguing that I'm perfect.
	And I'm not even arguing that I've done a particularly good job, but I haven't, I don't know what you're, I don't even know what you're accusing me of, to be honest.
	But you keep using that word, accusing.
	I'm presenting the facts about what happened or the facts as I found them.
	I'm not accusing anything of everyone, any, anyone of anything.
	I haven't speculated motive.
	I haven't said Sargon is a scam artist.
	I haven't said that either.
	In fact, quite the opposite, I've said in the article, I said we have to criticize those we love and admire.
	So if anything, I think I've been absolutely doing.
	Oh, I do.
	No, no, of course you do.
	But like, oh, you say there were delays from the artist?
	Yeah, of course there were delays from the artist.
	Of course you are.
	If our artist pulls out and says you can't use any of my work, then we have to commission new artists.
	And that takes a lot of time.
	We had to get something like 20 new models done.
	And we only had enough money to commission one artist.
	So what can we do?
	We've got to wait for the artist to do these things.
	The latest structure on our website has been the final pieces of 2D art that we commissioned from the 2D artist.
	I'm sorry that this doesn't work as fast as you would think it did.
	It does.
	It has nothing to do with what I think.
	It's just all of the claims that I've made on the article seem to be, at least up to this point, are correct.
	So I don't know what you're taking issue with.
	Well, I mean, it's literally what you've just said there, though.
	You know, you were like, why didn't you do this?
	Why wasn't this fast?
	Well, that's my job as a consumer, isn't it?
	Well, yeah, of course, but you have to understand how the system works.
	I do understand it from a more indirect perspective, Sargon.
	I'm not some run-of-the-mill guy who doesn't know what he's doing.
	Granted, I don't have maybe as much indie game development experience as you because you claim eight years of working with these other people, which I think was misworded mostly because it seems to, and I point that out in the article, and it's a minor grievance, but it seems like you guys have eight years of experience.
	And then you go and say, no, we started developing games five years ago.
	So you should have a very, you should have at least a bit of a working knowledge of how this goes.
	But I do have a master's in software engineering.
	I have worked in the tech industry.
	I do understand more than what you're trying to give me credit for.
	And when I say that maybe this should have been handled better, and if you would have handled it better, maybe it wouldn't have taken this much time.
	I don't say that lightly.
	You can disagree with it.
	I'm not saying that I have managed it brilliantly.
	Although I have to say, I think that being within budgets is a pretty good accomplishment.
	Excuse me, can you repeat that?
	We cut out.
	Yeah, I think that I'm not saying that I've handled the project brilliantly.
	My problem really is overestimating timeframes.
	And there are minor things like the forums.
	I'm afraid I just can't make forums.
	I just don't have the time or the resources to do it.
	It's one of the things I'm not proud of, don't get me wrong.
	But I'm rather proud of the fact that I make a suggestion and an opinion within its financial constraints.
	I'm very, very proud of that.
	So I'm not saying my managerial skills are perfect, but I think that where the most important parts have been emphasized, I have been successful on.
	Well, in my opinion, that'll be determined when the product actually comes out.
	Absolutely.
	But at the end of the day, it just been pointing that this could have been handled better.
	You don't seem to disagree.
	I've been pointing that these things happened.
	They did.
	You confirmed them.
	So I don't know, man.
	I mean, why am I the villain here?
	Is what I want to know.
	Well, you've written some giant expose that.
	I haven't.
	You keep taking it as expose.
	I did what a consumer would do.
	What would you call it?
	I mean, I call it the truth.
	That's what I'd call it.
	But that's what an expose is, isn't it?
	Well, you say it in some kind of negative connotation.
	And yet everything I've said is true.
	It's certainly in your mind that it's got a negative connotation.
	I think expose is that it's not.
	Okay, that's right.
	That's my speculation.
	Okay.
	So expose in a positive way.
	Okay.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I think a lot of exposés are.
	Great.
	But the thing is.
	But you take issue with it.
	Yeah.
	Well, yeah, that's because it's not strictly correct.
	Well, okay, let's find something I'm wrong at.
	Well, it's not so much that you're wrong.
	It's that your information is incomplete.
	This is the issue.
	Okay, let's see where it's incomplete.
	Well, we've just gone over one of the reasons it's incomplete.
	No, we went over your explanation.
	I never stated or gave an explanation.
	I said, this is what happened.
	It did.
	This is me giving you the information.
	This is what an explanation is.
	Well, again, you're saying that I have incomplete info.
	The info and what I was pointing out was this happened.
	That was the fact that I was pointing.
	The reason I have no interest in, to be 100% honest.
	Yeah, but I can't hear you.
	I'm saying that you are obligated to do that.
	If you're going to write an expose on something and you're going to say, look, these things happened, and yet there are reasons for these things that explain it within completely within reason.
	Don't you think you're obligated to put that on?
	I mean, that's why I put updates on my videos.
	As I said in the article, I will update it with pertinent information.
	But once again, this is entirely you saying to me, it's completely reasonable that it's delayed 14 months.
	That's an opinion.
	You said this is why it happened.
	We needed to look for a new artist, which I pointed to in the article, by the way.
	You keep saying that I have incomplete information, but I actually show that article left and that comment in your Kickstarter.
	So I showed that for that.
	Excuse me.
	Whereabouts in the article do you show that?
	Just have interest.
	If you go to the specific, let me pull it up.
	If I go to here, I say let's explore one of the reasons, one of the possible reasons.
	And I put out the statement that you said, Hi, Alan.
	Five days after funding, Giuseppe quit the team and started demanding an arbitrary amount of money from us in exchange the models for models he has done, so on and so forth.
	That's in the article, which is a translation of what you just abundant on.
	So tell me how I'm incomplete.
	Oh, right.
	So you're, I mean, as long as we're accepting my word there, then that's fine.
	Well, we can accept your word of what you said, whether it's the thing is, I guess what I'm concerned with is that you put my comment after before his comment.
	That's the issue.
	Because his comments, it makes it seem like he's countermanding what I've said.
	Do you want me to switch the order, Sargon?
	Is that what you because he is countering what you said?
	There's two sides to the story.
	Exactly.
	That's the two sides of the story.
	I'm not saying you're right or wrong.
	Well, okay, that's fine.
	But that's my point, though.
	So the order in which I put the quotes is what you take exception with.
	It's more the narrative you're spinning.
	What is the narrative I'm spinning?
	Because now you're accusing me of spinning a narrative.
	Absolutely.
	Of course, you're a narrative.
	So what is the narrative?
	The narrative, as you say, it seems like he's counteracting what I'm saying.
	When in fact I'm saying it's what he has done.
	So the narrative I'm spinning is that the other person is right.
	That's what you're claiming.
	Yeah.
	I say that's completely disingenuous at best.
	And I would encourage your viewers to go look at the article and decide for themselves.
	Fully encourage them to look at the article.
	Now, and once again, the important thing to denote here is that it's your word versus his.
	It absolutely is.
	And I don't engage in a he said she said.
	I just presented the facts.
	I don't care what disagreement.
	Oh, he said, she said.
	No, because that's not what I'm concentrating on.
	I'm concentrating on A, the product was delayed, and B, what we're going to get at, the company was dissolved before the Kickstarter started.
	Okay, so how about this, right?
	You say, listen, right?
	You've got, like, uh, at the top, you've got here, um, as you can see, the third member, Giuseppe, of the other Wasofo team, seems to have had money to speak with the other two members.
	And then further down in the article, you've got a title, Everything is Not As It Seems.
	Remember the claim about the person who runs the other world software Kickstarter made about the third member?
	Well, here is a here is niche gamer user Giuseppe Constantino, which is that it is him, and he has claims of his own.
	Absolutely, he does.
	So, everything is not necessarily what it seems.
	Yeah, but this, yeah, but this is the point: you're making it sound like there's something there, but it's not.
	I'm saying that it's not that clear-cut, and there's two sides of the story.
	Absolutely, absolutely are.
	But the thing is, we've actually reconciled with Giuseppe.
	This happened a year ago.
	I mean, I personally don't talk to him, but I know that Russ still does, and I know that he talks to him quite recently.
	And he actually asked us to help him on a project that he was starting on.
	He asked me to program it, and I said, Well, no, I'm busy with this.
	So, it's this is the thing: your information is very incomplete.
	He is not right, and I he's an Italian guy, right?
	He is a really nice guy, but he's also very hot-headed.
	As soon as we had a Kickstarter, let's say that I don't give a fuck if that's stereotypical.
	I don't give a fuck if you think that's because no, shut up, right?
	I know this guy, all right?
	I know him.
	He is a hothead.
	Do you understand?
	Well, that is your word.
	I don't care what your word is.
	That's because we don't have anything else to go on here.
	What we have to go on is that the company was dissolved before the Kickstarter started.
	Let's know.
	Let's talk about that then.
	Okay.
	Right.
	What happens in the UK when you were a non-trading company, which we were, we haven't traded anything yet, is that after a certain period of time, if you don't file tax returns, which you don't have to if you're a non-trading company, then your company becomes dissolved at Company's House.
	And this is an administrative thing.
	Hang on, let me finish.
	This is an administrative thing.
	We've contacted Company's house.
	We just have to pay £130 to get the company reinstated.
	However, it's actually not in our best interest to do that now that Giuseppe's left.
	It's actually in our best interest now to form a limited liability partnership because it saves us a lot of money, basically.
	And it saves us a lot of hassle.
	You were an LTD, which is a PLC in the UK, which is a form of LLC.
	So it's not that you're going to form a limited liability company now.
	You had that to be done.
	No, no, no, no, no, no.
	Listen, right?
	You get limited liability partnerships.
	They're not the same thing.
	It's basically being self-employed, but in a partnership with another person.
	And obviously, this can only be done with two people.
	So the reason we had a limited liability company is because we had three people.
	So Giuseppe was an official part of the company.
	Was he an employee then?
	Because he's not stated as one of the directors or any other.
	I told you we tried to give him director.
	But after the company was already formed.
	Yeah, so.
	So the company originally was a two-person thing.
	This company was two years old before this product before the Kickstarter even came in.
	So the excuse that, well, we tried to make him this, it doesn't change the fact that it was a two-person company.
	So, which is exactly what it is now, isn't it?
	No, now it's a partnership.
	Between two people.
	Yes.
	And what was it before?
	A company that was limited liability between two people.
	No, you're arguing.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Listen, a limited liability company is not just between two people.
	There happened to be two people in the company because me and Russ were the people who started the company.
	There's no reason we can't take on another director, which is exactly what we wanted to do with Giuseppe as a form of insurance for him.
	So he could see that, look, we are being absolutely on the up and up here.
	It's just we're being constrained by time and money.
	The claim he makes is that he had made a contract with you guys.
	That's the claim he makes.
	He had made in the niche, the niche gamer forum.
	Then he made a contract with you guys saying that he gets 20%, whatever.
	I don't care if he's being honest or just telling the truth.
	Only you can say that and him.
	But he had a contract with you.
	But if the company was dissolved, what he said there is that because the company didn't exist and he didn't know it didn't exist anymore, because that seems to be the part we're skipping.
	It didn't exist when you started the Kickstarter.
	There was no other world software in the beginning.
	No, no, it was dissolved after that.
	No, according to the information.
	That's true.
	No, it's not might be true.
	It is true.
	It was dissolved in February.
	You started your Kickstarter in March, exactly one month after it was.
	So the company was dissolved and apparently he felt conned.
	And that's me speculating on his motive.
	I don't know.
	You understand that it's not any kind of permanent state of affairs.
	We can pay £130.
	Do you have a company now?
	No, I'm a no, I'm self-employed.
	So you're back.
	This is what they give money to a company.
	Right.
	This is exactly the problem that Spurgs went on Zoe Quinn for, right?
	They were like, oh my God, she's saying donate to her game jam and it's going to her personal thing.
	Well, she's entitled to do that because she is self-employed.
	She still has to pay taxes.
	She still has to be responsible for that money.
	This is what a limited liability partnership is.
	It is a massive thing.
	But you didn't have the limited liability when you took the money, Sargon.
	You're presenting to your backers that you are otherworld software when other world software didn't exist.
	We can dance around it, but legally speaking, the company did not exist when you started the Kickstarter.
	It's disingenuous to say we are otherworld software.
	We're asking this.
	And I just expect that when you verified it, you verified it yourself as you.
	When I verified what, sorry?
	When you go through the, according to the verification process, which I also link in the article, according to Kickstarter, a verification process, which proves who you are and whatever, I don't know what the steps are.
	But before May 2014, you could verify the process and name the account whatever you want.
	I assume you didn't verify the process.
	You verify through my personal Facebook, don't you?
	Yes, I see.
	Because it's actually not done through other world software as a company.
	Why is the account named Otherworld Software?
	Because that's the trading name we are going to operate on.
	The company doesn't exist and still doesn't.
	But we don't have to exist.
	Do you understand?
	You can operate.
	I could operate under any fucking trading name that I like as a limited liability partnership in the UK.
	If it exists.
	No, it doesn't have to exist, man.
	I can literally pluck one out of my ass.
	So you can.
	You don't know how these things work, clearly, man, right?
	But seriously, I, as a private individual, self-employed, who pays taxes.
	That's called a sole proprietorship, which you're yes, but that's it is.
	And then when you have a partner, it's a limited liability partnership.
	When you register the company.
	No, you don't register a company.
	You register yourself.
	Let me put it to this way.
	This is.
	Oh, my God, man.
	No, look, right.
	You're wrong on this.
	No, I'm not.
	Yes, you are.
	You don't know what you're talking about.
	Okay.
	The company doesn't exist.
	That's the claim I stated.
	It's true.
	It doesn't exist.
	The company doesn't exist because I exist as a legal entity.
	Then you should have accepted the money as Carl Benjamin sole proprietor.
	No, I don't have to operate as a sole proprietor.
	That's the point.
	I can call myself whatever I want.
	I could say I am Carl Benjamin mega global corporation owner if I want.
	And I can say my business I operate under is mega global corporation.
	But behind it, I am the sole proprietor who is responsible for it.
	You're aware that the people who make claims against you don't go through Kickstarter.
	You're aware Kickstarter is hands-off, correct?
	Sorry, say again.
	You know that Kickstarter is hands-off when it comes to people making claims, legally speaking, against the creator, correct?
	Yeah, I'm sure they are.
	Why?
	Okay.
	So the people, let's say that one of these people is wrong.
	Let's say that you eventually don't deliver the product, which is a complete speculation, but bear with me, indulge me.
	That the product isn't delivered and they say, shit, we want to sue.
	We're going to sue this company because that's the name that you put here.
	And that's why Kickstarter changed its rules in May 2014 to be that if you verify yourself as an individual, that's the name that's going to show up in your account.
	If you verify yourself as a company, you have to verify that to them through the process that whatever it is, you should know that better than me.
	You need to prove, yes, I am who I say I am.
	I am this company.
	And that's the name that's going to show up.
	If you would have done this Kickstarter two months later, it wouldn't have showed up as other world software.
	It would have shown up as Carl Benjamin.
	It absolutely would because I get to choose how I operate.
	I get to say, I'm absolutely Carl Benjamin operating, trading as otherworld software.
	I can absolutely choose that.
	You can choose it if the company exists.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	As a sole proprietor or a limited liability partnership, I can absolutely choose any name under you can choose any name you want.
	There's nothing to register.
	Do you understand?
	There is nothing to, as long as I personally am registered with HMRC, I don't have to register anything anywhere else.
	Do you understand that?
	I understand that if you do that as a sole proprietor, that's correct.
	Or as part of a limited liability partnership.
	The partnership in question needs to be registered.
	Right.
	But at the moment, I'm operating as a sole proprietor.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, your site and your Kickstarter and everything tied to this suggest that it's a company.
	Not one guy.
	You're completely allowed to present yourself as a company.
	But a multi-person company, not a sole proprietor.
	That's what it's presenting itself as.
	And it's not.
	It doesn't matter how many people are implied to be in my company.
	That's what I'm saying.
	I can literally say mega Globespan Incorporation.
	And I will be carbon.
	The definition of solar goes to you yourself alone.
	And you can name yourself whatever you want.
	You can name yourself Sargon of Akkad for what anyone cares.
	That's when you're a sole proprietor because you're alone.
	That's the definition of solar.
	I'm not understanding how it works in the UK.
	I mean, maybe it works differently where you're from.
	I don't know, right?
	But you have to understand that I can say I'm operating as whatever company I like and I can make the company sound as big as I like.
	Do you understand?
	I can make it sound like I have millions of employees.
	So your claim is that as a sole proprietor, you can claim to have employees and partners and whatever.
	That's what you're saying.
	I've never said I claim to have.
	I'm asking you a question.
	That's not what you're saying.
	Sole proprietors absolutely can have employees.
	Do you understand that?
	I'm not going to comment because I don't know.
	Okay, well, I'm telling you that I do.
	I spent six months going on a business course for free from the government.
	It's that EU funded.
	So I should probably tell them thanks EU.
	I actually do know this, man, because, you know, I kind of thought I'd go into doing this.
	So I actually spent the time.
	This is why I know I've done nothing wrong.
	And this is why now you are on this stream.
	Okay.
	I know I'm in the right.
	And I know you're in the wrong.
	And I know you don't know what you're talking about.
	That's the problem that we're having here.
	I fundamentally disagree.
	Of course you do.
	That's because this is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, man.
	You don't know enough about this to be able to tell me what I've done wrong because I haven't done anything wrong because I know what I'm doing.
	I know the company was dissolved before the kickstart.
	I know you presented yourself as said company.
	We absolutely, and I will do in the future.
	And you know why?
	Because I'm legally allowed to do that.
	Again, what I'm stating that you seem to not be getting is that, yes, you as a sole proprietorship could name yourself whatever you want, but you chose the name that was also registered as a company, a LLC or whatever you call it in the UK, that's registered as a company.
	And the way you're presenting it is you're saying, here's the team of people.
	And we've been working together for this amount of time.
	And you present, this is the company.
	Let me finish the point.
	And you're presenting yourself as this is the team.
	This is other world software.
	This is the company.
	And there so happens to be a company, the only one registered under that name, okay, with the same name that was dissolved.
	And it so happens that the artist with you is claiming that the company was dissolved and that that's why you guys had this dispute.
	That's all I'm presenting.
	Right.
	Okay.
	What you're presenting to anyone who knows what they're talking about isn't going to make them think that I've done something wrong.
	Do you understand?
	They're just going to think.
	Good.
	I'm just presenting the information.
	Okay.
	That's fine to you.
	If you want, if you want, you can link me to whatever thing you want me to add.
	And I'll add it there on the site in the bottom, if that's what you're concerned with.
	Yeah, well, I mean, if you want, I mean, it's up to you whether you put an update.
	I mean, this is not so people can see it.
	So I'm here specifically to hear your grievances about the entirety of the article and present it.
	As I've said, right, you've presented things in a way that is, I think, in places misleading.
	But fundamentally, I think you've not got a very good understanding of how UK law works in regards to this.
	Well, then just link me to the laws in question that prove that I'm wrong and I'll happily put it in the description.
	Okay.
	You want to go to, oh, I don't know.
	It'll be somewhere in the company's house, I guess.
	Send it to me because I've done some reading and it seems to contradict what you're saying.
	But if you're saying I'm incorrect and you have all of this experience, all you have to do is link me to the information and I'll put it there and I'll say, hey, the company in question doesn't exist, but here.
	Okay, I'll find you some information on limited liability partnerships and sole proprietorship and how you can operate however you want.
	Okay.
	It's fine.
	I'll find that.
	And the part about how you present yourself as a group rather than someone person.
	Again, I don't know how else to stress this, man.
	So let me just put it this way.
	Everyone as a company presents themselves as a group.
	And as in the way I'm a sole proprietor is one, usually one individual, just usually one.
	Whether it can have employees or not in the UK, I don't know.
	It's usually one individual.
	Of course, an LLT or an LLC specifically, because again, I'm not familiar with the UK exactly.
	But an LLC is a group or a partnership of people with limited liability.
	Okay.
	You present yourself as we are a team of people who've been working together and we're all part of this company.
	That leads people to believe that this is an LLC joint company, not just you're a sole proprietor and they work for you or whatever your counter argument is.
	It presents itself that this is the company of people who are all on the same level.
	And here's a company that was registered under your name and your partner's name, which is consistent with what you explained in the description, saying that we've been around for quite a bit.
	It's not five years, it's two, but that's just legal mumbo-jumbo.
	That doesn't matter.
	So, and here is a company under the same name as an LLC that has been dissolved.
	Your counterclaim is that you can just do this as a sole proprietor and you just happen to pick the same name as the LLC, which is your right.
	You can do that.
	Okay.
	And you're saying that you can operate in that same way and that you're the sole proprietor, despite the fact that you have a partner, a legal partner that you stated is this is the person who's working with me.
	I'm not alone.
	And you're stating that you can do that as a sole proprietor and not having to register an LLC.
	That is your claim.
	And I'm saying, link me to the link that proves that claim.
	I will find off the top of my head obviously.
	What I am close to is that the whole point of creating a limited liability company, of creating a company in and of itself that is not a sole proprietorship, is that everybody owns a percentage of it.
	It's actually not.
	It's to have limited liability.
	It's not, right?
	Yeah, it's to have limited liability.
	And it's also to be able to pay yourself dividends.
	Exactly.
	And that those dividends are there's they've changing some stuff in some specific areas.
	But the whole point is that the assets of the company are separate from the assets of the people.
	Absolutely.
	That's one of the big points.
	But the secondary thing, which is why, because as a sole proprietor, that's not the case.
	Do you not find that maybe is something as a reason why we did the Kickstarter after the company had been dissolved?
	Because now the assets are mine as a sole proprietor.
	Yes, and now you have liability.
	Now you have liability.
	Absolutely.
	I'm completely liable.
	So if the company that I'm running as a sole proprietor goes into debt, then they can take my assets, my personal assets.
	This is why I stressed that we managed to do everything well within our budget.
	We're not in any debt.
	I've got no worries about that.
	Again, suggesting you've done everything in the budget, time is part of the budget.
	Time isn't part of the budget.
	Okay.
	Whatever.
	But it absolutely is.
	In every company in the world, time is part of the budget.
	If I had like offices or something, then maybe you could say that time is part of the budget.
	If I had working on the project, for example, and you say, I'm going to be working on this project for six months, I'm going to be doing nothing else.
	Time is absolutely part of the budget because you're going to be paid for your time.
	You're going to pay dividends yourself as a developer.
	We're a non-trading company.
	We were a non-trading company.
	We haven't traded anything yet.
	So we've got no financial ingoings or outgoings.
	Well, the Kickstarter, I don't know how they handle that.
	Yeah, that means a sole proprietor.
	I took the money into my account.
	And then I've got records of everything.
	We've got contracts.
	I don't doubt that.
	Yeah, I know.
	I'm not worried about any of this.
	That's the thing.
	Well, that's great.
	I'm just.
	This is like you're saying that, like, a couple of doors down, right?
	I've got an ex-I've got a neighbor who I think you call it something like immediate plumbing services or something like that.
	And it's just a guy in his van.
	But are you saying that he now needs to make sure that everyone knows it's just him and he's not allowed to present himself as a larger professional company?
	I'm saying that by the information that is publicly available to the people, it seems that it's something else.
	Maybe, again, you have all of your legal right to use as a sole proprietor.
	But again, the idea that the sole proprietor can have equal share of partners seems like a contradiction to me, but I'll wait to see your information.
	But as a sole proprietor, what I'm saying, and it seems to be very reasonable, that choosing the exact same name as a defunct LLC, it's your right.
	It is absolutely your right.
	But can't you see that that may lead people who can who, again, this information, publicly registered companies are available to the people.
	I believe sole proprietors are as well.
	I couldn't find you, but I'm sure it is, and I'm sure you'll link me to it so I can put that on the site as well.
	You being registered with your company number that you have as a sole proprietor as well.
	I'll happily link that, which I'm sure you're going to give me that.
	I'm not giving you my personal tax information.
	Not your personal tax information, but when you register a company, because again, the information you don't have to register a company, it's I personally am registered.
	That's like with YouTube, it's the same thing.
	It's exactly the same thing.
	I have to figure out.
	I have to then fill out a tax form.
	I have to pay them tax on any income I have, but it's me as a person.
	It's not like a separate entity.
	Yes, there are some countries where you don't have to register.
	You're correct.
	Because there are some countries where you do have to do an additional step and not, because you're correct.
	And you do use your personal tax information for this.
	That's correct.
	But in some countries, you do need to register additionally as a sole proprietor.
	So again, you don't have to do that in the UK.
	Fine.
	But here's the thing.
	Let me finish the point.
	But being a sole proprietor means that you can just use that.
	Well, okay, that's fine.
	For example, in countries like Spain, you have to register it as an what they call an autonomous worker, and that is an additional step.
	And they pay additional taxes for that.
	Yeah, you have to register in the UK as self-employed.
	Okay.
	So what I'm saying, however, is that you picking the name of a defunct LLC, which you have the right to do.
	You have the right to pick whatever name you want.
	You're correct.
	But picking the name of a defunct LLC, presenting yourself as we are a partnership of people.
	Don't you think that maybe that leads to people looking up and seeing, hey, this company called, because again, if you look for other world software, it's not going to pop up as Carl Benjamin.
	It's going to pop up as this defunct LLC.
	Don't you think that maybe that was not the best decision?
	I think I would rather people ask me this and come to this query on their own.
	I quite like the name other worlds.
	I quite like that for a video game software.
	And yeah, exactly.
	And I was part of founding the company before we let it become dissolved.
	So I think I would rather take responsibility for people in future.
	If someone would say, are you anything to do with that?
	Well, I can say absolutely.
	That's why we're using the name, which is operating in a different way now.
	That's all.
	Okay, I'm more than happy to take responsibility for that.
	Okay.
	Well, either way, the claim that I make in the article is that this company, in particular, Otherworld Software, as a registered LLC, the LLC, the LTD, Otherworld software, is defunct.
	It is.
	And that is correct, right?
	That's correct.
	Yeah, no, that's absolutely correct.
	So, in the article itself, I'm not claiming that, hey, you're getting everyone's getting fucked because the company doesn't exist.
	I'm just saying this is the case of that of Otherworld software as an LLC.
	Okay?
	Did you agree?
	Sorry, say that again.
	Sorry.
	I'm reading directly from the article.
	Okay.
	I say that Carl's company, this particular company, which exists and has dissolved, and I'm not wrong in any of that, does not include Giuseppe in the director role according to the information.
	And it seems to be exclusively a company founded by the two members.
	But what is really concerning is not just that the company has been dissolved, but that was dissolved right before the Kickstarter was launched.
	That's coincidental.
	That's fine.
	Coincidental.
	But there's nothing false is what I'm saying.
	No, no, no, there's nothing false.
	But again, I think it leaves people with a false impression.
	I mean, we didn't even know that companies became dissolved if you were non-trading.
	I had no idea that they did that.
	And so it came through.
	So we just decided to operate as a sole trader on me because I've registered for that.
	So, again, and even include, I will not speculate on the motive.
	And I think this is right, and I'm not even going to speculate on being incompetence or malice.
	And only Carl Benjamin and his partner can answer, which you're doing.
	So please point out what I did wrong is what I'm because again, it seems you had an issue with the entire article.
	Up until now, the only thing that you've actually reviewed is this.
	I've only been made aware of this since about seven o'clock this morning.
	So don't you think you should have maybe taken a little bit more time, looked at it before and don't you think that's why not just get you on to talk about it?
	I mean, there does seem to be a lot of tone to the uh it's just you're making you're talking about the tone of the article.
	You're talking about so you would you would think that there is something in there to expose, but I mean what what what what do you think the purpose of the article is at this point?
	The purpose of the article is to point out facts which it is done about both Sargon Of Akara and Carl Benjamin, the game developer and the YouTuber and, for what I've seen, there's no scene.
	That's nothing false there, There's nothing you've been able to say.
	This is false because, again, I do point that the company in question let me read this out to you go ahead.
	You say I will not speculate on the motive rather, this was done because of incompetence or malice.
	Only Carl Benjamin and his partner can answer.
	I will say that, for a man who concerns himself with ethics, this situation certainly seems to be missing a ton of it.
	So how am I being unethical?
	Keep in mind that you're also missing the previous part to that, which included the part about a youtuber uh uh, doing a little.
	Um, the person in question, the person who did the comment.
	He did a uh kind of a fluff piece no, not really a fluff piece which is explaining the game and stuff which you and and your partner on the stream, and he was a backer yeah, he's my mate, but that's not disclosed, is it?
	And, as I said, that's more of a failure on his part.
	Well maybe um, to be fair, if he, that's probably a failure on my part as well.
	Um, but yeah no he's.
	He's a very good friend of mine.
	I've known him for years and years and years.
	I've never i've never said that he's not a friend of mine, as far as i'm aware.
	But yeah he, he decided to do a stream on his.
	He's got a little gaming channel, if anyone is interested in checking it out.
	Yeah, it's linked in my article.
	Yeah, So, but yeah, he's a friend of mine.
	He was like, Can I do a stream with you?
	Then I'd advise you to tell him to disclose the fact that he's a friend and backed the project and his video.
	Yeah, there's absolutely no reason why he shouldn't.
	Okay.
	Just pointing out, I'm just pointing out that that was also one of the things.
	Yeah, but you're saying that for American situations seems to miss a ton of it.
	What am I doing that's unethical?
	Well, again, the using of the presenting yourself as what people could interpret as the LLC rather than the sole proprietorship was what I was referring to, whether I'm correct or incorrect.
	The idea of you backing with that same account, backing another project or two projects, one failed till you got the money back, backing two other projects when you should be because, again, what that presents to the outside, if people are suspecting, okay, this is a company, because they're viewing you as a company.
	They don't care that you're Carl Benjamin.
	They're viewing you as a company.
	Sole proprietor, LLC doesn't matter.
	You're a company.
	It actually does matter.
	That's the thing.
	But okay, Karen.
	From the money and how you use it, perhaps.
	But what I'm saying is people see you as a company.
	Yeah, they don't.
	Okay.
	So we can agree there.
	Yeah.
	That perception isn't accidental.
	Every sole proprietor who operates under the legal definition of company.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	By the legal definition, it's not a company.
	It's deliberately done to look more professional, though.
	And this is what I mean with like Joe the plumber next door when he's got like, you know, international plumbing services on his van and it's just one guy in the van.
	He's completely allowed to do that.
	And he does that because it makes him look like he's a bigger deal than he is.
	Because like they say, you dress for the job that you want, not the job that you have.
	And that's exactly what this is.
	Again, it's people are viewing you as a company.
	Right.
	Okay.
	That's all I've claimed.
	People view you as a company.
	And they look at the guy who has not delivered his game or the company, excuse me, that hasn't delivered the game and they watch it backing other projects.
	What is the connection that people may make there?
	They might think, well, wow, they want to spend $5 backing that Kickstarter.
	Whatever amount of money.
	I don't know how much money is, and there's no way of me knowing that.
	Well, I can tell you it's very at the time we didn't have very much money.
	And let me just check.
	Yeah, No Princess in the Castle, I backed myself because I thought it was going to be a game.
	It turns out that it was a documentary, doesn't it?
	Yeah, it's a pretty social justice documentary.
	Well, no, no, absolutely.
	It absolutely is.
	But I thought it was going to be a game.
	And the thing is, I want social justice people to make their own games.
	That was my put $5 on that.
	That's $5 I lost.
	Not company money, personal money.
	And the other one was Mage Rage, which was one that failed.
	Yeah.
	But that was backed by Russ of his money because he really liked the look of the game.
	Okay.
	And I state that.
	I don't know which one of these people actually gave the money.
	I don't know who it, you know, whether it was Carl.
	And I even say it's probably from his personal money, which all of that I see.
	But the point is, man, it's just like, you know, this is lacking a lot of ethics.
	It's like, well, I don't really think it is.
	You know, I don't, I mean, if I thought it was, I'd probably do whatever I needed to do to like get the situation back on track.
	And, you know, I mean, I will update the Kickstarter, excuse me, the Kickstarter to go to our new website.
	And I think that you probably should update your article to go to our new website as well.
	Because, I mean, there's an update on there from this.
	I got that information when I woke up and was going to do.
	We're operating on similar time frames.
	I was going to do that, that it's a new blog and it's been there for quite a while.
	But my point is that there is an accusatory tone to this.
	You can't say there's not an accusatory tone when you say for a man who concerns himself with ethics, the situation is lacking, you know, but that's accusatory.
	Oh, if you don't like the tone of that particular phrase, that's again, that's your opinion.
	You're free to have it.
	It is.
	It's my opinion.
	You're free to have it.
	I really don't feel I need to respond to that.
	Okay.
	Well, that's on you.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, is there anything else you want to ask me?
	Well, you were the one who invited me, Sargon.
	No, no, I absolutely am.
	But this is your expose.
	I mean, if there's anything else that you think I haven't covered, then please let me know.
	No, we seem to have talked about everything.
	The question I would like to ask you, though, is that do you feel that the article in itself was what are your thoughts on the article itself?
	Because again, it seems that you believe that it's an accusation, that it's meant to drag you in the floor, despite the fact that I repeatedly state the opposite.
	Hey, who gives a shit what I say right?
	But then the article itself is kind of the proof that you're trying to be.
	Let's say that I was dead wrong on presenting that the company was dissolved, despite the fact that that is factual.
	Let's say that I was missing the part that you're going to send me.
	Let's say that.
	Everything else in the article seems to be true.
	And in fact, even this, which you've pointed out, the flaw being you haven't updated with this particular piece of information that I'm giving you, there's nothing false in the article, is there?
	Right.
	So there's nothing.
	There's nothing information in a way to imply or even directly.
	Again, speculating what my intentions are is your business.
	You literally say at the end of it that I am acting in an ethical manner.
	You felt that.
	It said it seems.
	Okay, if it seems.
	Yeah, but okay, exactly.
	That's your opinion.
	You're trying to substantiate that with what.
	And it's based on the entirety of the article, not just one thing.
	Yeah.
	So, and the entirety of the article, the only thing that you've been able to kind of rebate is the fact that I presented the company that was dissolved, but didn't include the possibility that you were a sole proprietor and you picked the same name.
	That's the only thing you've pointed to.
	Everything else you've conceded.
	Yeah, but that's because nothing else that you've said is wrong.
	That's your opinion.
	And again, it seems that, no, it's not wrong.
	Everything else.
	You know what?
	You're right.
	In a lot of ways, right?
	You are right in a lot of ways.
	I mean, what you've got here, like, I mean, your opinion on the ADSA, I think, I mean, I just simply disagree with a lot of the things that you're saying.
	And I think you're misinterpreting some of the things that are happening.
	Yeah, I think that I need in Gamergate to focus more on ethical concerns.
	I absolutely think that.
	And that's the only thing that's actually, I think, possible to defend when confronted with the people who are committing these concerns.
	Because otherwise, it's not really something that they're going to change their mind on.
	And it's not really something that you can force them to do.
	When it comes to the AGSA, well, I disagree with your position.
	When it comes to me as a developer, I wish we got this kind of coverage from the game.
	This is one of the reasons I care so much about gaming here, because we went to Kotaka and Polygon and all these other things.
	And I've got a couple of other friends who from the indie dev groups who have said exactly the same thing.
	They've like been like, literally, no one will cover us.
	And it's because they're making game games rather than social justice games, obviously.
	But this is, I mean, like this breakdown and stuff like that, I would love to have had that in an article on Polygon or something, you know, back in the day, obviously not now, because it would have given us more backers.
	The only reason we passed the Kickstarter is because on the last day we were about three grand short, and my dad was like, right, this is your inheritance, so don't fuck it up.
	And he topped it up to the three.
	So your father gave the last free grand.
	Did indeed.
	In fact, most of it is family funded and friend funded.
	There's a very, very little of it is from backers, we don't know, because we couldn't get any coverage man um okay, a couple couple of quick points.
	Um, about that number one, the.
	Then, if you're happy with the coverage, then again i'm just doing what I think is right.
	I'm not happy with the coverage?
	Well, it's not i'm not happy, it's just I know.
	I know you're not happy with my particular article and that's your problem.
	It's not that, it's, it's more that you know it would have been useful when we were trying to solicit backers from the, the real world.
	I think the truth is always useful.
	Well yeah okay, but my point is the coverage would have been nice right, I mean, if I would have been in, if I would have been doing this back in the day, I would have happily done it.
	I've done it with Eugene Ekojima's game.
	I covered his game and i'm doing what I think you know is is my share of the load.
	I'm not a journalist, never claimed to be.
	I'm just doing what I feel other people aren't doing and again, i've it would have.
	If you would have done the kickstarter now or do the kickstarter now I would have done the exact same thing.
	So again, but that's that seems, your opinion.
	But at the end of the day, it's just, I don't know.
	It seems that the entirety of the article is factual.
	It seems that, and and again and i'm wanting to stress this again, it's not that you that I disagree with your opinion on the AJA situation is that you didn't present the whole story and I feel you have a responsibility to do that as a youtuber with a big following.
	Yeah, but the thing is you you've presented, like my statements about Giuseppe before Giuseppe, statements about me, which is not the older.
	No, it's the other way around.
	Yeah, it's not the order that it came in.
	And I mean you say like everything is not as it seems.
	Well, you know, here's he has claims of his own, as if they are to counteract, counteract my claims.
	But my claims are just an interpretation.
	Man, I mean he does have claims of his own.
	He does have claims of his own that are directly putting his claims after my counterclaims to him.
	Again, I don't I, again I don't see why the order is relevant.
	I just i'm sorry, i'm not seeing it because order is irrelevant.
	I mean, and i'm not even saying that he's a leading question.
	That's why man, i'm not saying that he's even right.
	Have you not seen yeah, I know, I know you're not saying he's right right, but have you not seen the um yes, prime minister, skit where Humphrey talks to the guy and the guy says, well, you know, have you know, this is what the survey said that he comes back not giving us the result response.
	We want Humphrey's just like, we'll just go and get one that does.
	And the guy's like, well, how can we do that?
	And he just goes through a a process of leading questions to get people to the answer.
	Do you and this is what you're saying here, wait a minute that i'm asking leading questions to get the viewer to get to a specific conclusion?
	And i'm trying to push a narrative?
	That's what you're saying.
	Look, by asking leading questions listen to me by asking leading questions, it's not a leading question.
	It absolutely is, you know.
	But this is exactly what you're doing.
	You're leading the the reader to think that this claim was actually a counterclaim to my own, by presenting it after my own, because people see things in a um um blah blah blah, um.
	What's the word I?
	I brain fart.
	Um, you know, I know what you mean.
	After another uh, I can't remember the word.
	That's really pissed me off.
	But people see things in in order and so they see my oh, that's what he said.
	And then they see Seppies, and you make it seem like it's that, excuse me, you make it seem like it's in fact a countermandment to what i've said, when in fact it's the other way around.
	Again that it's just you're.
	You're accusing me of pretty much just presenting the idea that this claim contradicts yours, when I explicitly say that that's not the case.
	I explicitly say that I don't know I.
	I specifically say, let me go and reopen.
	You present like an original narrative, and then you say, Well, I'm not presenting a narrative.
	Of course, no, I'm not.
	I'm just pointing out the things that I found that are facts.
	You keep accusing me that I'm trying to point a narrative, which is what everyone, what not everyone else, which a lot of people are saying is just a hit piece to type Mr. Sargon down or hurt him, which it's fucking not.
	And you're assisting to that idea by saying you're presenting a narrative which is trying to push that he's right and I'm wrong.
	I don't know which one of you is right or wrong, and I don't finally give a fine fuck.
	I just presented it because these are the two sides of the story.
	And I'm not even concentrating on your bickering as to why it happened.
	I concentrated on a specific thing.
	He said the company doesn't exist.
	That's an interest of the people.
	So I looked that up.
	Does that company exist?
	No.
	You now offer a counter-explanation, which I'll look into.
	And I believe that if I find contradicting information of what you found, I'm sure you'll respond to it.
	But as I say in the article, this is an updating and ongoing thing.
	And I may even write a second piece.
	I say all of that.
	But the entire accusation is based off of you don't like my narrative.
	No, no, I don't listen, right?
	Listen, right?
	You didn't present this accusation, this claim of Giuseppe's in chronological order.
	That was the word I was looking for, chronological.
	You didn't present this in chronological order, right?
	Which means that you have created a narrative that is missing information by the time they get to my counterclaim against Giuseppe, right?
	And then afterwards, you say, everything is not as it seems.
	Here's his claim as some sort of revelation.
	But that's a disingenuous thing to do.
	That's your first of all.
	That's your interpretation.
	I don't care what your interpretation is.
	That is disingenuous because this is the original claim that I am responding to.
	It's disingenuous to present it afterwards as if wait a minute.
	The original claim that was made, if you read the comment, was a comment made in your friend's video that is no longer there.
	And I explicitly say I'll comment on the third part because I go through your conversation with your backer, which I do have to look at if the date is before or after the Niche Gamer post.
	Because you're accusing me that I'm seeing Niche Gamer, but that doesn't matter because what we're talking about is an event that happened before I posted on Kickstarter, which is why Alan posted that post on Kickstarter.
	And I think it's actually a credit to his trans you know, his desire for transparency that he didn't just ask me on Facebook.
	I'm actually pleased he asked me on Kickstarter.
	So I can't.
	Vote for you, but again, you're again, you're saying that it doesn't matter when the chronological order of when these posts were made matter.
	You're saying that it's the issue itself.
	There's no way for the logical order of events, I think, that is important.
	I have no way of knowing when you guys had a conversation or not.
	Absolutely, you don't.
	So how am I presenting it in any chronological order?
	And how can I get that right if I don't know when you guys talked, according to you?
	Because my comment is very clearly, very clearly, a response to Giuseppe's comment.
	It's a response to a specific comment that was made on a specific YouTube video that is no longer there.
	I'm not going to.
	I don't know.
	I don't know about any of that.
	No, no, no.
	That's what you say in your response because that's what you're talking about.
	He says, a specific artist made grumblings about money and whatever on my video, and he links the video.
	And you say, no, this is what actually happened.
	And you respond to that particular comment.
	A comment that is no longer there.
	And I stated if it was there, I would have just used that.
	So the Niche Gamer thing, what he said on Nietzsche.
	I think what he said on Niche Gamer, I think that's a cut and paste of the comment that he may have put on Alan's video.
	There's no way for me of knowing that.
	I don't know that either, but it's essentially what he said.
	Well, it's actually not what he said to us, but it's what he would tell people that he said to us, is what I would expect him to say.
	But again, that's it's just it just sounds absurd to me, man, to be honest.
	It's the whole thing that you're well.
	I think that it doesn't sound absurd to me, and it doesn't sound absurd to other people.
	If the order is switched, would you be fine with it?
	It would be more accurate.
	Because again, I'm simply saying I don't want to talk about the company dissolution thing right now because it brought it completely as a different tangent than what we were talking about right there.
	That's the whole point.
	And now you're saying that I present that in some kind of attempt just to, I don't know what.
	I mean, you haven't made a specific claim that if I'm trying to slander or I'm trying to fucking make people think that there's more here than there really is.
	I mean, this is in the chat when this first started.
	That's speculation of narrative.
	That's that's just speculation.
	The reality of the situation is actually a lot more mundane than you think.
	Right.
	And I think I think I've made that quite clear.
	You know, this isn't this is in fact this hothead guy who and things I'm not saying that he doesn't have any legitimate grievances.
	We have been working for two years and we'd had no nothing again.
	All of that he's a hothead.
	That's your opinion.
	I don't have to take it on your word.
	I don't care.
	Take it on my word.
	Go and talk to him and see how you find him.
	Okay.
	But again, I don't, I don't, I'm not, I'm not getting into the bickering that you two had.
	That was not my interest.
	And again, you're accusing me of leading up to something when I was talking about something completely different in the point where I actually put that statement.
	And I say it.
	We'll get back to the third part of the statement later because it's a completely different tangent.
	And you're interpreting it as no, you have a narrative.
	And I'm telling you, I don't have a narrative.
	I stated in the article.
	People have a narrative.
	If you're not presenting events accurately in chronological order, you are creating a narrative by leaving out events that you need to put in correct order.
	You're creating a narrative.
	If the post in Niche Gamer happened after the post in the Kickstarter, I'm sorry to tell you the order is correct.
	Like, it's on you to tell me that he made another contract.
	I'm telling you now, then you know, it's very obvious that I'm responding to something Giuseppe has done.
	And the thing is, right?
	No, you're responding to something that Giuseppe has done on a third YouTube.
	I don't want to drag his name through the mud either, right?
	Because I don't blame him.
	I'm sure that I'm not the easiest person in the world to work with.
	And he had worked with us two years.
	And like he says, you know, we're under agreement that he'd be a part of the team and he'd take an equal share of the income.
	No one had made any income until this point, which is why we're doing it in advance.
	But this is the thing.
	He hadn't made any money from working with us, you know, and working on faith for two years, that's a big deal.
	You know, I mean, we were as well working on faith, but it's part of being an indie dev.
	But it's a big deal.
	And I can, you know, I don't even blame him for getting angry at us.
	You know, and then suddenly we have some success.
	And he's like, right, okay, at least I can claim something, you know.
	But we, and the thing is, and the irony of this is right is that we wrote a contract for him to sign that we would give him the money for the models as long as he would finish the models that we, that we needed I think about four or five extra models that were in progress to finish all the models in the game.
	And we would, we would do that, and he refused to sign the contract.
	Well, he does say in the interest of of of putting his uh uh opinion there as well.
	According to the Niche Gamer uh comment, he states that he signed an article with you guys in the beginning, like at the beginning of the two years, and then he found out that the company was dissolved and he believed that the that the contract was void because of it.
	I don't know if that's true.
	Again, the contract's with us, not?
	Well, that's his statement.
	Even if the company dissolves, I think that the contract still remains with us.
	Actually, at least in the definitions of LLC that I'm aware of, no, And even if legally it doesn't, I'm happy to, I would have been happy to uphold my end of any contract that I've signed, even if technically, legally, I don't have to.
	You know, I still wouldn't mind doing that, right?
	Well, then you're a good guy, and that's fine.
	I'll try to be, man.
	But this is the point, right?
	And I'm not even happy that we're dragging his own to the mill because, yeah, you got a bit stressed.
	But we've resolved it.
	It's not like there's any particular outstanding issue between us and Giuseppe.
	And so this is the thing.
	None of this.
	I'm not saying that you should have been aware of this, but there is a presence.
	Because there's no way of me to be aware of that.
	of course not but this whole thing it seems to make you make I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill is is what it is and I think that there's a lot of people are encouraging you to do it because they're annoyed that I want to talk about ethics rather than social justice Okay, wait, that final claim.
	There are people encouraging me to do nothing.
	I did this alone.
	There was two anonymous people who gave me the article who gave me a link, excuse me, not two, one, who gave me a link.
	And that link I double-checked on my own with UKGov.whatever.
	And I double-checked that on my own.
	So it's not that no one's pushing any idea and I'm not a mouthpiece for other people.
	So I don't, I, again, if you have evidence of that claims, go ahead.
	But otherwise, I suggest you not to make that claim, to be honest.
	All I'm saying is that there are people who are definitely very pleased that you wrote this article because they want to use it as a method of attack against me.
	But how, and what do I do with that?
	What do I do with that information?
	A, you've got to accept that you have crafted a narrative.
	No, I have not.
	I know that you don't accept it, but you have.
	By misinterpreting, not even on purpose, but by misrepresenting and misinterpreting the sequence of events, you've crossed the narrative, especially as you've, and he has made claims.
	Again, I specifically deny that I misrepresent the sequence of events.
	That's your claim.
	I deny that.
	And again, I'm stating that if I got anything wrong, as I say in the article, I will update it.
	But again, until I see the information that validates everything you're saying, it's just your word.
	And I'm not, you know, that means nothing at the end.
	Okay, but what proof can I give you?
	The specific claims that you stated about how sole proprietorship works and all of that other stuff and how I'll just tweet those out because then you can see them.
	They're just I'd rather you send it directly to me.
	I mean, I'll tweet that.
	I want to fit as well, man.
	You know, I think we've got like 1,300 people listening.
	I think they should also be able to see this.
	But it's on the UK Gov website, like Soul Trader and Limited Liability Partnership.
	So I've just tweeted those out.
	Because again, it's not that I did the research.
	I looked at this situation.
	And if you're saying that I misinterpreted it, what fucking UK law is, I can accept that.
	Fine.
	Show me the evidence.
	Because that's categoric.
	What I'm concerned about is the fact that I'm clearly responding to Giuseppe's allegations in the comments.
	And also, you seem to think that the entire article is about that specific point.
	No, but that's just a major point in the article.
	It's one of the multiple major points in the article.
	It's one of the points in the second section of the article.
	Okay, but what other points are there?
	And the point that was actually made there was: hey, this company, the one that this looks like to be, the LLC, is dissolved.
	And I'm right.
	That's the point there.
	There is no other point.
	There's an alternative motive.
	Your conflict with Giuseppe is of no interest or consequence to me or the article.
	All that the point states is that, hey, this looks weird.
	And maybe my selection of words there, I'll give you that.
	Maybe that selection word wasn't correct by saying this seems unethical because it seems that it's just that and it's not just that that I'm referring to.
	And this is the narrative I'm saying that you've spun whether you've done it on purpose.
	Saying that I wrote the piece to prove that you're an unethical individual.
	I don't think that necessarily you did it deliberately to do that, but that is the result.
	I mean, you've got that.
	I think that to any intelligent person.
	Any intelligent person who reads it specifically because I state it multiple times.
	Yeah, but seriously, right?
	Come on.
	You say, literally, for a man who concerns himself with ethics, this situation certainly seems to be missing a ton of it.
	How can you say you're not trying to present some information as if to suggest that that is the case?
	You literally state that that's what you think.
	After the entire article and everything that I looked at, yes, that was my conclusion.
	And I, but now, can you tell me what I've done that's unethical?
	We've discussed it for like three hours and that was a good question.
	Yeah, but just give me one example of one thing that I've done that's unethical.
	Well, I can't talk about the company until I read the counter evidence, so I can't use that.
	I've just tweeted out the oh, that's fine that you tweeted it.
	I'll reread it.
	I'll look at it and I'll even make a video to see if everything was represented in the way that you talked about.
	I'll do all of that.
	Okay, if you're right, and if you're right, I am absolutely right.
	Okay, that's your opinion.
	If you're right, yeah, but let's just assume that that's the correct.
	I mean, we've got literally thousands of people in the chat like saying, you know, this is, you know, I've looked at this.
	He is right.
	Let's assume that for the moment, we're right.
	I might be wrong.
	And in the future, if we can prove that I'm wrong, you know, I'll say, hey, I was completely wrong.
	But let's just assume I'm right for the moment because I'm the one who has been actually educated on this subject.
	So let's assume I'm right.
	So I've not done anything wrong there.
	I haven't done anything wrong with Giuseppe.
	I haven't done anything.
	I never claimed anything about Giuseppe.
	Okay, so what exactly?
	Okay, so for a man who concerns himself with ethics, the situation seems to be missing a ton of it.
	So what exactly is missing any kind of ethical information?
	And it just informs my ethics.
	What is not unethical that I've done in your article?
	What is not ethical, you mean?
	Name one thing.
	The fact that you presented, going back to the AJSA, the fact that you presented an incomplete, because you're accusing me of incomplete narratives, of incomplete information, you did the exact same thing with the AJSA.
	I don't think I've misrepresented what you've said.
	I agreed with you.
	No, you've refused to represent it and you've made it the situation about what Vimonro claimed.
	No, you didn't even look into whether he was telling the truth.
	Which again, his whole apology based off of this is not true, what I stated, is false.
	That is verifiably true.
	I don't think exactly what you're talking about.
	Hang on, hang on.
	Let me, I, I, as far as I'm understanding this, I understand that the Angry Joe show forums allowed discussion of Game Gate for three months under a single thread.
	I don't know the amount of months.
	They initially allowed it in all threads, then they closed all the other threads and forced it to be one big thing.
	Okay.
	And during that conversation, mods itself tried to derail the conversation.
	Right.
	They did all sorts of messed up situations and so forth.
	The entire playlist does not concentrate on just that, though.
	The AJ situation goes further.
	Like, for example, the fact that I'm not going to speak to V Monroe's complaints with Angry Joe.
	Personally, I personally actually don't agree with what he was doing with that.
	But then I don't have to.
	I'm not the one.
	You don't have to agree.
	What you do have to do, however, is that if you're going to stay, which you haven't, that something is untrue or not factual, you have to prove the opposite.
	And again, you're accusing me of crafting a narrative.
	I don't have to prove the opposite.
	I just have to prove that what I'm saying isn't true.
	But again, I don't know.
	But you haven't.
	Yeah, but I don't know that V's thing isn't true or isn't true.
	It's not my issue.
	All I'm saying, I know that on the Angry Joe Show forums, they did allow discussion of Game Gate.
	But that wasn't the only issue.
	They allowed discussion and they banned people.
	They kicked people out.
	They bullied NML.
	They brigaded them out.
	All of that happened, by the way, during the time that forum was open.
	It didn't just happen when they closed it.
	Yeah, I'm sure that these things are true as well, but they're not something that I'm particularly concerning myself with.
	And you presented one side of the, then you shouldn't have presented any side of the narrative if you don't care.
	Well, no.
	Because you're accusing me of the same thing, Sargon.
	You're accusing me of me of not presenting all of the facts.
	Because again, none of my facts are.
	I'm saying that I'm not presenting all of them.
	No, no, but actually, I am saying what you're doing is wrong.
	I'm saying that you've directly, directly mixed up the chronology of things that have happened to influence the decision to say, oh, this seems unethical.
	But my point is, I'm not making claims about whether the AGSA forum banned people or brigaded people or anything like that.
	I don't know whether these things happened.
	I haven't said anywhere that they did or didn't do these things.
	No, but you presented and helped present a narrative, which you did.
	You helped present a narrative that directly contradicted it.
	You brought this person on.
	Why did you, I mean, again, you brought him on your channel to discuss the issues that had happened, the whole issue with the AJSA.
	You have a huge following, okay?
	And absolutely.
	And you're here doing the same thing.
	So, no, no, I'm saying that if you live and die by that sword, if you're saying that I'm doing it, then you did it because it's the same thing.
	So if you're saying, if that's your accusation that I presented incomplete information, because again, I completely deny that, oh, the chronology was meant to specifically point that.
	I'm not saying that you deliberately did this.
	Don't get me wrong.
	In the same way that you're doing this.
	No, you're saying I did it because I'm incompetent.
	But again, looking at the article itself, if I directly state, this is the point of this is not to take down Mr. Benjamin, which I specifically state right at the beginning.
	That's not the point of this.
	And yet you're still saying, well, you presented the narrative because you're incompetent.
	It didn't know what you were doing.
	I didn't say you're incompetent.
	I just said you didn't have all the information.
	And again, if I've done the same thing, then it's because I didn't have all the information.
	It doesn't make me incompetent.
	But you did.
	That's the difference.
	You just admitted.
	You admitted earlier.
	No, no, no.
	You admitted earlier that you had seen my stuff, not all of it.
	So you knew that.
	I saw enough of your stuff to think right.
	Okay, this guy has a serious problem with Angry Joe and his community.
	Again, a serious problem implies some kind of personal personal thing about this, to be honest.
	And again, the AJSA and Joe are not necessarily the same thing.
	That's true.
	And I've, again, I state that.
	And I make very specific claims against Joe and very specific claims against the AJSA.
	They are entitled to ban people from their forms if they want.
	It's a direct contradiction.
	And so are people in Reddit.
	So are people in GameStop, IGN, and any other site.
	Yeah, we've talked about them as a great example because Reddit actually has a completely different mission statement.
	What is the mission statement of the AJSA?
	Well, they don't know, do you?
	So how can you say that?
	No.
	Why would they need to?
	They're a gaming friend.
	Because you just said that they're completely different.
	They are completely different.
	They are not obligated.
	I mean, hell Reddit isn't even obligated to provide a space for all these things.
	And their users are different to Reddit's users.
	Reddit's users, because Reddit frames itself as a place where people can discuss anything.
	So does the AJSA when it comes to gaming.
	Yeah, but that's the thing, isn't it?
	They can discuss gaming.
	I'm sorry, but anything related to gaming in any sphere.
	They can interpret that however they like.
	And they're approaching Reddit.
	So they can say, look, right, if you want to talk about a scandal between Nathan Crayson, Totillo, and unethical practices on Kotaku, that's not actually a game issue.
	That's a press issue.
	They can spin it if they want.
	A games press issue.
	Yeah, but they can say and they can say, this isn't the place for it, but we will give you a forum thread for three months to discuss it.
	And which is what they did, right?
	No, they didn't give a timeframe.
	They decided.
	Okay, fine.
	They tried to derail it.
	The moderators tried to derail it.
	That didn't work.
	They tried to do all sorts of things that didn't work.
	Really, that's bothered about minutiae because again, I seem to be very bothered with minutiae when it comes to my article.
	That's because you're talking about things that pertain specifically to me.
	So, I don't care only when I can actually give you an informed opinion on it.
	I don't know anything about what happened on the AJSA forum, so there's no point in me talking about it.
	Then, there was no point in you bringing on Damien Ring and allowing that side of the narrative to be presented, is there?
	Listen, right?
	The AJSA have done nothing wrong by banning people from their forums.
	They're allowed to do that.
	They have done wrong by not delivering on the specific things that they said they would with when you donate money.
	If you have done that, you want right, you can do that.
	I might even support you on that.
	But to say that they are in the wrong somehow, they need to be held to account.
	Well, not really, you know, to be honest, they within the right step.
	If you don't like it, you cannot go there, which I personally would do if I thought that that was the case.
	Neither do I.
	I don't go there either, and I haven't covered them since.
	But that's the point.
	It's not about narratives at this point, it's about I mean, what they've done isn't you know, it doesn't matter whether you know it or not, it doesn't change the situation.
	I fundamentally disagree.
	Well, there we go.
	I mean, I fundamentally disagree.
	Okay, so you're free to disagree, but you know, it doesn't change what an outsider's perspective is there.
	But uh, I simply believe that if a specific narrative is presented, if you give a platform for someone who is involved in a situation to talk on your platform and to specifically paint a situation in a certain way, when you know there's contradicting information, even if you haven't looked at it, I think that is a failing on your part.
	Okay, well, I don't think that them banning people or anything like that affects what I've said about them.
	I don't think that information is necessarily pertinent to what I've said.
	It's not just them banning people, it's the entire because, again, your entire stream was a follow-up to the V Monroe situation and the narrative that he presented.
	And by doing that and saying, oh, it's well, let's talk about the AJSA.
	It's great, it's not, you know, all that stuff.
	What you're doing is you're validating that original narrative.
	And as a YouTuber, you have the responsibility to your audience and you have the responsibility.
	I don't think I have responsibility to my audience.
	That's just my standard.
	Okay, but I disagree that I'm validating Vimonro's narrative because it's not mine.
	I wasn't addressing it.
	So, why did you bring Damien Ring on your channel?
	To talk to him about the AJSA and see what their perspective on Gamergate is, see what his perspective on gaming journalism was.
	You know, I was very, very, very gratified to see that he cares about objectivity.
	I thought that was a very important thing.
	Yet, however, and you also discussed the issue with Vimonro, to be 100% honest.
	You do discuss that.
	But again, it paints the AJSA as this place that is not against Gamergate, that everything is fine, because that's the narrative that he pushed.
	That's the narrative that we said on your channel.
	I encourage people to go back and look at the video.
	I've got people tweeting me saying, look, the AJSA banned the GG thread after numerous posts devolved into abuse.
	Those posts, first of all, the GG users who are there have not just me have declined that to be true.
	And second, many of the derailing posts came from moderators, moderators themselves.
	Yeah, I'm not saying that they didn't.
	When you mentioned the tweet, I'm giving you the response.
	I'm sure that there were moderators who were strongly opposed to Gamergate.
	Hell, most authority seems to have been strongly opposed to Gamergate.
	But the point is, they did allow Gamergate discussion to happen.
	And so if they did that, then fuck me, man.
	You know, They must have at least a we seem to just disagree that censorship is only censorship when it happens at a specific time frame.
	I don't agree with that.
	And it fundamentally contradicts what they state to be about in the same way that all these other sites that we complain about, you know, state to because they allowed the conversation to happen for a specific amount of time.
	So what's the line?
	How much time is okay for it?
	Okay, now you can close it.
	What's the line?
	When you say your users can talk about anything you want and this is your community and do whatever you want, what is the timeframe in which it becomes no problem to ban a specific conversation?
	There's no point in me giving you a figure, a number.
	Because there is none.
	Exactly.
	It's their choice.
	They get to choose arbitrarily if they want.
	The same way that all of these other places have the right to choose to ban and do whatever they wanted.
	They do have this.
	It's the same situation, run next to another.
	Okay.
	But I mean, again, a specific one was shut down.
	Is this the ethical issue in your argument that I have the breach of ethics that I've committed?
	Again, that's one of the things that I perceive based on my own personal code to be one of the situation.
	Because again, and I do state that.
	I do say it seems to be.
	And that's clearly talking from the point of view of the writer.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	So that's clearly my opinion, which I'm free to have.
	If you don't like it, that's fine.
	The point of this entire stream is to verify what of it was not factual.
	And the only claim you seem to have is that you don't agree, which is your right, with how what was the order I presented the information, which I don't concern myself with if you agree with it or not.
	But I was also giving you the information you were missing.
	And it's true.
	What I point out was true.
	You can argue that maybe a piece of it was missing information.
	That does not deny that the rest was true.
	Right.
	And you seem to not understand that you haven't been able to do that.
	It's true.
	And that's all that matters when it comes down to it.
	If you want to accuse me of presenting a narrative, that's your prerogative.
	And I have no reason to respond to that.
	I did so.
	I did so because when you say something about someone and they want to talk to you, you go to your stream and you talk to them.
	But again, how you perceive and you accusing me of spinning a narrative and then saying, oh, you just, you didn't know you did it, which is a direct hinting on a conversation.
	That's your prerogative, man.
	Man, look, you have been unable to demonstrate an ethical failing that I have done here.
	In your views.
	You've been able to.
	I'm not able to demonstrate that.
	In your views.
	I'm not a brilliant project manager, which I'm happy to accept.
	I've never claimed that I am.
	But I don't think I'm an awful project manager.
	That's an opinion, and that's your- It is my opinion.
	And that's your- And I never stated that you're awful because that would be an opinion.
	Some people would disagree.
	And I personally, I disagree.
	If that's what you're looking for.
	That's not an ethical failing, though.
	But I've never stated that in particular was an ethical failing.
	Yeah.
	Okay, but that's the point though.
	Everything you're saying, you say, you know, it's concerning yourself with ethics.
	This situation is missing a ton of it.
	And yet I don't really see where I'm missing, where I'm failing.
	Well, fine.
	That's you don't have to see it.
	Again, the only point of this entire conversation is to prove, did Verilo make unfactual claims?
	The answer to that seems to be no.
	If you disagree with my assessment of ethics, that's your prerogative, man.
	I disagree with yours.
	I think that there's a way of interpreting what happens and facts that is.
	If you claim that I interpreted it nuanced and with a narrative, again, that's your prerogative.
	I'm telling you, that's not the case.
	Your follow-up argument is, well, you didn't know what you were doing, which is a hint of incompetence.
	You can say it's not, but you're pretty much saying, no, well, you didn't know what you were doing.
	You're incompetent.
	And I'm telling you, that's not the case.
	But again, you're free to your opinion.
	If you think that I built this or you feel that this was built, especially at the end part where it says, I'll update this pertinently, which again, if you're building a narrative, that kind of breaks the whole thing, don't you think?
	Saying I'll update this if any of this was wrong, that kind of fucks everything over, doesn't it?
	Not really, no.
	No, so saying if even again, if I'm presenting a narrative and I'm going to update the article that could break that quote-unquote narrative, don't you seem to think that that's kind of a failure on my part to say, hey, this is an ongoing situation.
	There's things I left out because I say it.
	I may write a follow-up because there's more stuff.
	And again, it's contradictory to me presenting a narrative.
	I say that.
	I specifically state that the point of this is not to cause harm or anything like that.
	And I'm not presenting a narrative.
	I do all of that.
	And yet, despite all of that, you try to make the argument that I'm presenting a narrative.
	Well, it's despite the fact that none of my claims are incorrect.
	I do.
	That's my main issue.
	You can't give me an example of it.
	And the only example.
	I gave you one and you disagreed.
	Exactly.
	The only example you think that I have done is one that, frankly, I think is a very personal issue to you and not to myself.
	No, Sargon, that was one example I gave you.
	It's not the only one.
	Give me another one.
	The article is littered of it.
	The entire article is based around that.
	And I say what have I done that's an ethical?
	What have I done that's not ethical?
	Again, in my view, that also the changing of Gamergate is not ethics only.
	The focus of my work on Gamergate.
	Yeah, I think it's completely.
	I personally believe that it's, since you're big on narratives, that it's spinning a specific narrative for convenience.
	I feel that.
	And I say, hey, that to me is a failure.
	You have to present everything.
	But this change is done for no other reason.
	But again, that's my assessment.
	After exploring what Digra's influence on the gaming press was, it's not just Diagra's agreement.
	And then focusing my personal work on the ethical failings of the press.
	That's unethical.
	No, I'm sorry.
	I'm saying, first of all, the whole root of this is social justice warriors.
	You got to fight social justice warriors.
	This is, you know, these people are the ones who are fighting Gamergate and they're feminist and all that other stuff and saying, yeah, that's the cause.
	And then going from that and saying, well, mission accomplished, guys.
	That to me is an ethical failure.
	And you can disagree.
	Yeah, I don't.
	That's fine.
	I don't think I've breached any code of ethics there.
	But the point here is not for me to prove that my particular, because again, the only way for me to prove that you did something unethical to you is to do, is for you, is to find a breaking in your own ethical standards, which are subjective to begin with.
	The point of this, however, is to is to show, did Verilo lie?
	Did he point anything unfactual?
	And I think you failed to point that out.
	Everything I've put here is true.
	Okay.
	And now you're only going after this as a narrative.
	And again, you can have that opinion.
	I don't even have to respond to that.
	You say you have a narrative.
	Okay, you can believe that.
	Okay.
	But the thing is, again, the ethical.
	Yeah, but that's because that's the most important thing in this.
	And I think to a neutral observer would be most concerned.
	You almost used the word journalism.
	I haven't claimed that.
	I didn't say journalism.
	I think a neutral observer, if they were reading this and they didn't know anything about the situation, they wouldn't be interested about the he said she said.
	They wouldn't really, I mean, they might look at your information and go, oh, right.
	You know, that is the company's house.
	That deserves further inquiry.
	It does.
	But there's no breach of ethics there, as far as I can see.
	As far as you're concerned, correct?
	Of course.
	So wait a minute.
	Your concern is that people are going to read it and they're going to absorb my same conclusion.
	Sargon, I don't know if you know anything about me.
	The one number one thing I say is look at the facts and then come to your own conclusions with your own research.
	It seems to me that you're concerned that people are idiots and they're just going to repeat my own conclusion.
	I think it's a good idea.
	I give the reader a little bit more huge amounts of time.
	And your conclusion is that this situation certainly seems to be missing ethics.
	You can't demonstrate all you do.
	I've demonstrated all of these.
	Again, let's go to why the conclusion happened.
	The conclusion happens because there's certain facts which are true that when all, you know, after looking at all of these facts and presenting all of this, because again, I don't even give opinions throughout the article.
	I think I made one joke in like two paragraphs before, which if you're familiar with anything I'm written, is completely uncharacteristic of me.
	Or any video I've ever done.
	It's completely uncharacteristic.
	I usually include jokes and stuff like that.
	And I didn't do it specifically because here's all of the facts.
	Here's my conclusion of said facts.
	My interest is not for people to look at my conclusion and go, well, whose conclusion is correct?
	No, it's okay.
	Well, let me look at all these facts and see what conclusion I get to.
	And it is my right to present my personal conclusion after looking at all the facts.
	The failing from an writing perspective would be if the facts I presented were false and they're not.
	And quite frankly, when you say that we haven't updated our website, is that not a true thing?
	Is that a true thing?
	It is a true thing because that's the site linked on your Kickstarter.
	If you started with the same thing, it's not my current operating website.
	But again, that's your job to put it on the Kickstarter, not mine.
	That's not my job.
	The official official website is the one linked on your product.
	The Kickstarter isn't the only place that we deal with our games.
	I mean, it's not like you can't go to our Facebook group and find the website.
	Facebook group that hasn't, I covered the Facebook group too.
	Did you watch the video associated with the article that's in the article?
	No, I haven't watched the video.
	Okay, in the video, I go to your website and I click all of the contact us information.
	There's a YouTube that doesn't exist.
	There's a Twitter that in the video, I can't see the tweets.
	I do look at it previously, and the last tweet was like in October, something about Gamergate, nothing to do with the actual product.
	I look at the Facebook group, which was inactive for quite a bit.
	I think the last posting was in April.
	I looked at all of that.
	Yet you're stating that I presented incomplete information when you failed to even look at the whole thing.
	Okay, so you don't think you're presenting incomplete information?
	No, I think the presentation is quite factual and it's quite there.
	When you update the Kickstarter, and I was going to update and say, hey, they seem to have another website, but it's not linked anywhere.
	It doesn't have forums.
	It doesn't have any of these other things.
	It's simply a blog with updates, but it's there.
	I got that information sent to me this morning.
	We're on similar timeframes.
	Okay.
	So it's kind of a whoa, you didn't put the operating website.
	Yeah, well, that wasn't your operating website because that's not what you linked anywhere, was it?
	So that's your failure, not mine.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Well, I will accept that failure, man.
	So I get the thing we're kind of talking around in circles now.
	So is there anything else you'd like to discuss before we put an end to the stream?
	No, I think that I'm going to look into once again the facts that you've presented here.
	I'm going to re listen to the stream.
	I'm going to look at the information available and I'll make an update pertinent with it and all the necessary things.
	And again, the whole point of this is not, again, I'm not some fucking villain has been painted since the AJSA situation.
	I'm just a guy like all of you looking for the fucking truth and just doing what I feel a responsible consumer would do and pointing out things.
	Because again, this is part two of a Gamergate Battered Wife series, which you also didn't mention that either.
	This is an entire thing of looking at what I feel are failures of Gamergate and how we can get it.
	Gamer-battered wife series.
	I didn't actually realize this was part of the series.
	Well, it says it in the title, Sargon.
	Part two.
	Sorry, but go ahead.
	That's right there.
	Paying too much attention to that.
	I was paying attention to what you're saying.
	Look, I don't know about the rest of your series, man.
	You know, I would find myself dubious now that I know about the particular article on me.
	So, well, that's your prerogative.
	I mean, I'm aware you and the people who admire you are not the people who are going to look at this.
	I state that in the article as well.
	I'm not going to be applauded for this.
	But again, my interest in coming here was to prove that none of the actual facts presented were inaccurate, and they're not.
	Is there a possibility was missing it?
	Of course.
	That fucking happens all the time.
	And you yourself are big on journalists and bloggers and those people correcting said things, which once I look at all of this, I will do and add to the end.
	But the facts were not incorrect.
	I'm sorry you feel offended by my conclusion.
	And I'm sorry you're not.
	I'm not offended by my conclusion.
	I'm saying your conclusion is faulty.
	Well, okay, that's your prerogative.
	And I'm sorry that you feel that I'm building a narrative to apparently hurt you.
	And I'm sorry that there are people out to get you that.
	I'm not worried about that.
	I'm not worried about that.
	Well, you do say that people like you, and you did allude to that in the stream.
	So I'm not working with anyone.
	I'm not working with anyone.
	I'm just a guy doing what I feel is right.
	The thing about being someone who's actually rather mundane in their personal life is that, you know, you could pull up everything I've done on the internet for the past like 15 years, and it would be really fucking boring.
	That's one thing that I always find amusing about the social justice warriors is that they've got terrible histories.
	And for me, it's just most of the time.
	I mean, I used to be a dick on the Magic the Gathering forums, just arguing about Magic the Gathering cards.
	I spent probably about 10 years on history forums bitching about minutiae to do with history.
	And, you know, I haven't really done anything very exciting.
	I don't, again, I'm not.
	It's really nice to be the center of some interesting.
	Oh, isn't this an interesting controversy?
	I mean, someone's tweeting me an archive to the an 8-chan thread.
	Oh, my God.
	This is amazing.
	I'm not.
	Someone really isn't artists.
	Oh, my God.
	Am I?
	Wow.
	Well, that really doesn't have anything to do with me.
	Well, that's their interpretation.
	I mean, now I'm responsible.
	It's their interpretation.
	I mean, I'm responsible for that too.
	Jeez.
	Well, you saying that you don't have any responsibility for that.
	If I made a video lying about an East Sarkeesian, would I?
	But I'm not lying.
	Or misrepresenting.
	No, I'm not misrepresenting.
	I put all the facts there, and my conclusion you say is inaccurate.
	But I'm not lying.
	And you haven't been able to prove that.
	There's no lies here.
	I think that you've misrepresented information.
	Well, that's your opinion, but the facts are there.
	People can look at it.
	And you haven't proved any of the facts to be inaccurate.
	At best, what you've proven is that maybe it's missing something, which I will update.
	That in itself is factual inaccuracy.
	No, that's simply something that's missing.
	I mean, the facts, the first facts in and of itself, I mean, again, nothing you present is going to contradict the fact that that particular LLC, whether you're using it or not, and you're not, that particular LC is defunct.
	And it is.
	I mean, there's no working around that.
	So, you know, I mean, that there's more to the story, maybe that you were doing something else and an explanation that only you can give, because none of that is publicly available knowledge, and none of that is something you've discussed elsewhere that I'm aware of.
	Fine.
	I mean, hey, that's why we do streams.
	That's why we talk to people.
	But there's no lies.
	There's no inaccuracies.
	There's nothing here that you can say, oh, if I make a video lying about Anita Sarkeesia and compare it to me.
	That's not the case, Argonne.
	And I think you know it.
	You can disagree with me and not like it.
	That's fine.
	I don't think that you have arranged.
	I don't think you've presented things in a sensible and correct order.
	I think you've presented them in a misleading way.
	And I think you've tried to kind of hype this up as if something really exciting is going on.
	How did I hype this up?
	We've been through it, man.
	And at the end of the day, You're saying I'm lacking ethically in some way, and I frankly don't think I am.
	Well, that's your opinion.
	I'm not saying you're free to do it.
	No, it is.
	Yeah, it's absolutely my opinion.
	But that's the point, though.
	You know, at this point, you've just been like, it seems like this is missing a ton of ethics.
	Well, I don't think it does.
	And I don't think other people are going to have that opinion either.
	Hey, great for them.
	There are a few people on 8chan, I guess.
	Well, good for them.
	I mean, my interest is presenting accurate facts, and that's what I did.
	And if my disagreement is my conclusion, fine.
	Okay, well, thanks a lot for coming on and discussing it.
	Thank you for having me.
	Not a problem.
	Thanks, everyone, for listening.

▲