Comment on Twin Galaxies, Billy Mitchell settle Donkey Kong score case before trial

ovec@lemmy.wtf ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  He can still make videos about The Completionist and WataGames

  source

  • ampersandrew@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    He can stop making videos on The Completionist unless you really want to see someone cosplaying as a journalist list things he suspects the guy did but can't prove (beyond the first video). There's a reason that an actual journalist would want to get actual numbers behind the golf tournament, for instance, or consult with someone to see if maybe it's totally ordinary for signatures to be missing from documents because they were e-filed, or perhaps make sure that their legal definitions came from something other than just the first hit that they found with a quick Google, but maybe that timeline doesn't work for the World of Tanks promo slot he sold for his video. If the "bait" that he fell for in Jirard's response was as damning as implied, it might be in his best interest to stop making videos about The Completionist.

    source

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What's the factual issue with what he said about Jirard? Like for example, would you say any of the big blockquotes in this story are specifically untrue?

      source

      • ampersandrew@kbin.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Click the link in my comment. There is room for almost all of what he said to be true, but he didn't prove it, and that's a big problem, because there's also room all of it or nearly all of it to be false. It's why an actual reporter would get someone on the record to confirm a fact, consult with an expert, and be sure that the things they think are damning are actually damning. Meanwhile, he and OrdinaryGamers may have made some legal faux pas in the process of putting up videos that are sensationalist for clicks. Again, this doesn't mean that their allegations are false. But it's so, so important to actually prove it, because if they're wrong, lies travel faster than the truth, and if they ever make a retraction (I doubt it), fewer people will actually hear it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Update: Moon took down his video, and posted this, saying among other things "Karl is right: I didn't engage with the entire body of evidence, thereby getting crucial facts wrong."

      source
    • aperson@beehaw.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I like Ernie Smith’s take:

      tedium.co/…/the-completionist-open-hand-foundatio…

      source

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Often, when I am covering a topic I lack familiarity or specificity with, I bring in an outside source—in the case of nonprofits, that meant talking to sources like lawyers and financial experts on the challenges that can face charities. (Lawyers, it should be noted, often don’t speak in absolutes about specific situations when talking to media outlets.)

        Jobst didn’t do that, essentially meaning he was interpreting the documentation himself.

        Citation needed. I don't know that Karl consulted with a lawyer before making this video, but given that he's right in the middle of getting sued and has spent over $100k on legal fees defending himself in that lawsuit, it'd be pretty surprising if he didn't talk to his lawyer before making this video, but instead just sort of sprung it on him as a little surprise.

        I'm curious what Ernie's reason is for asserting specifically that he didn't talk to a lawyer about his video.

        Dude is filling time for hours, because that’s how the format works, and that lends itself to slip-ups. It doesn’t seem like he was being intentionally misleading, for the most part.

        By saying that he'd donated money he hadn't donated, he was just... filling time on his stream? "For the most part?" Doesn't that aspect of the issue deserve a little more attention than half a paragraph?

        I have more I'd like to say about other things in this article, but honestly most of it is just beside the point. Like I said, the actual situation is actually extremely extremely simple. Seeing these huge videos or articles, which talk about charity fraud but spend almost all their runtime dealing at incredible length with issues other than "Did Jirard commit the technical definition of charity fraud?", actually specifically emphasizing that it wasn't a big deal if he did for the short time they touch on it, seems very weird.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    …and Todd Todgers (sic)

    source
• Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I miss when his videos were just about the records and not the drama surrounding them

  source