Game Show Garbage Inducts Golden-road.net

[TLEberle]

I\'m not one to throw stones myself, so here\'s a list of all 13 of my board game reviews as posted on boardgamegeek.com; you\'ll find I\'ve reviewed lots of crappy games but at least two are top drawer.

[JepMasta]

Well, this is kinda difficult for me, since when I first read it, I will admit I did mentally do a fist pump that a bunch of butt-hole #3s were finally getting what was coming to them, and I reflexively posted a congratulatory post on facebook.  But I have had some time to re-read it and do some fact-checking and soul-searching, and I really think Rob crossed a line here by calling out individual members of the community...one of whom happens to be a friend of mine (though I honestly wasn\' aware of it at the time.)  I personally believe that Rob made a few good points, but upon further review, he got swallowed up in the bile and vitriol and it made for what I am now seeing as an uncomfortable read.

 

Now, on to the matter of reviewing crappy media.  As a long-time fan of the reviewers on the Channel Awesome (The Nostalgia Critic, Linkara, Obscurus Lupa, et al) I think that it can be done well and entertainingly, as long as the attacks don\'t get personal.  For example, I think the movie \"The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies\" (yes that is the name of the movie) is a hilariously bad picture.  But, when you watch a review of it (or the hilarious episode of MST3K it inspired), the host or review don\'t call out the director/star Ray Dennis Steckler as a horrible person.  They use the bad movie as a canvas to paint a piece of comedy.  The best internet reviwers do reviews like this with a wink to the camera, more or less saying \"Yeah these are bad movies/tv shows/comics, but you know we\'re just taking the piss out of them adn having a little fun.\"  They are funny because the reviewers are funny people, not just because the content is bad...although that helps.  When it gets personal and hateful, well that\'s when the line is crossed, and it become wrong.

 

Now, this is glass house territory since I did contribute a review to his site, and I must say I count Rob as a member of my somewhat small circle of friends.  But while I do think the source material could have been good for a chuckle, after re-reading it, I realize that it was hurtful.

 

Brian~

[dale_grass]

This was my first (and probably last) trip to Game Show Garbage.  Rob\'s article was amateurishly written and unnecessarily abrasive (although this IS the internet, so maybe that was the point).

 

That being said, I think there does exist a problem with obnoxious fanbois on GR.  In fact, thanks to the thread on the upcoming kids\' special I was able to beef up my ignore list with people whose off-balance ramblings I didn\'t care to ever hear again. 

 

But for the most part the board is decent folk discussing their favorite game show, and I\'m all for that.

[J.R.]

The response of a \"hypocritical douchenozzle\" (ie: Me)

I really enjoyed reading this.

 

As someone who is not a fan of wrestling (nothing against it, just doesn\'t intrest me), I never \"got\" what he was trying to mimic and just looked it as a cheap copy of Angry Video Game Nerd (who I\'ve always interpeted as a parody of the Comic Book Guy \"cynical\" group of the genre). The whole ironic \"THIS SUCKS!!!!111\" thing just wears on me after a while.

[JasonA1]

a bunch of butt-hole #3s were finally getting what was coming to them

What\'s a #3?

-Jason

[BrandonFG]

a bunch of butt-hole #3s were finally getting what was coming to them

What\'s a #3?


-Jason

According to Rob, the third category of fan(boy)s (either in game shows or wrestling): incredibly obnoxious and extremely clueless, and oftentimes belligerent with their thoughts. He uses the term to unfairly paint G-R.net. I\'ve shaken my head at quite a few posts there, but to completely write the site off is narrow-minded, esp. given how \"outsiders\" think of our fanbase the same way.

 

As someone else noted, some of his blog posts make him look a bit like a \"#3\", to use his own phrase.

[PYLdude]

As far as I\'m concerned, there\'s nothing wrong with criticism. Hell, Wrestlecrap.com (GSG\'s inspiration) can still keep things fresh because for all the good that there\'s been in the business over the years, there\'s just as much stuff that either a) made no sense, b) was just laughable, or c) was so poorly misexecuted that you can\'t help but say something about it.

 

And yes, there\'s a lot of stuff in the game show world I could critique as not having liked. But the point is that I don\'t have enough material to last over two and a half years, nor should I. If it was simply bad shows and Jim\'s dumb answer of the week, it\'s okay. But when you start digging up things that nobody either saw (some of the Canadian shows he profiled such as Baloney) or are way too obscure for their own good (the \"buttah\" answer, a bonus round on Nick Arcade that maybe two people in the universe besides Rob remembers), that lose their luster after two seconds (the High Rollers monkey facepalm), do things that other people riffed on and did better (his Faux Pause criticism, which was better when Kris Lane did it), and induct things that simply don\'t need to be inducted (such as ESPN Trivial Pursuit, Joe Farago, and Carnie Wilson- which he had already tabbed for an induction WITHOUT WATCHING AN EPISODE OF THE NEWLYWED GAME, mind you), you\'re wasting effort that could be put towards different things.

 

And yes, Carl, I know all about Rob\'s issues. And yes, you and I aren\'t on the best of terms right now due to some of the things I may have said or done (among at least one or two other things I won\'t get into here). But this is a point I raised to you three years ago with him and I still think it\'s apropos- you\'re his web host, you\'re one of his confidantes, his friends. And I understand you don\'t want to risk losing him as a friend (a consideration that perhaps should be extended), but you\'re just making excuses for him.

 

You weren\'t scared to come after me when I did a lot less to stir pots (some of you know what I\'m talking about), and I\'m not the most emotionally sound person either. I don\'t understand why you\'re afraid to, for lack of a better term, tell Rob what he needs to hear.

 

And I hate that I had to bring it here publically like this (I apologize to Chris and Matt and anyone who may have been off-put), but it had to be said at some point. If not by me by someone else.

[JepMasta]

For what it\'s Worth, Rob just posted an updated version of the induction

[cacLA8383]

As far as I\'m concerned, there\'s nothing wrong with criticism. Hell, Wrestlecrap.com (GSG\'s inspiration) can still keep things fresh because for all the good that there\'s been in the business over the years, there\'s just as much stuff that either a) made no sense, b) was just laughable, or c) was so poorly misexecuted that you can\'t help but say something about it.

 

And yes, there\'s a lot of stuff in the game show world I could critique as not having liked. But the point is that I don\'t have enough material to last over two and a half years, nor should I. If it was simply bad shows and Jim\'s dumb answer of the week, it\'s okay. But when you start digging up things that nobody either saw (some of the Canadian shows he profiled such as Baloney) or are way too obscure for their own good (the \"buttah\" answer, a bonus round on Nick Arcade that maybe two people in the universe besides Rob remembers), that lose their luster after two seconds (the High Rollers monkey facepalm), do things that other people riffed on and did better (his Faux Pause criticism, which was better when Kris Lane did it), and induct things that simply don\'t need to be inducted (such as ESPN Trivial Pursuit, Joe Farago, and Carnie Wilson- which he had already tabbed for an induction WITHOUT WATCHING AN EPISODE OF THE NEWLYWED GAME, mind you), you\'re wasting effort that could be put towards different things.

 

And yes, Carl, I know all about Rob\'s issues. And yes, you and I aren\'t on the best of terms right now due to some of the things I may have said or done (among at least one or two other things I won\'t get into here). But this is a point I raised to you three years ago with him and I still think it\'s apropos- you\'re his web host, you\'re one of his confidantes, his friends. And I understand you don\'t want to risk losing him as a friend (a consideration that perhaps should be extended), but you\'re just making excuses for him.

 

You weren\'t scared to come after me when I did a lot less to stir pots (some of you know what I\'m talking about), and I\'m not the most emotionally sound person either. I don\'t understand why you\'re afraid to, for lack of a better term, tell Rob what he needs to hear.

 

And I hate that I had to bring it here publically like this (I apologize to Chris and Matt and anyone who may have been off-put), but it had to be said at some point. If not by me by someone else.

 

Yeah, those \"one or two things\" are a private matter and will not be discussed here, definitely. And while you have decided to even mention it in public to begin with, gotta say that you and I \"not being on the best terms\" will continue for the foreseeable future. An edited version of the article is now up that no longer has any personal attacks and he apologized for doing so to begin with.

[Matt Ottinger]

 (I apologize to Chris and Matt and anyone who may have been off-put)

 

I thought I had made this clear already, but I am no longer moderating this forum.  If you feel the need to apologize to \"the moderators\", there\'s just one of those now.

[Mr. Brown]

This is the lamest site since lame came to Lame Town.

[MTCesquire]

Ok, maybe I\'m lost.  I really would appreciate if someone would fill me in to what I\'m missing.

 

So...golden-road.net is a site that, when mentioned around these parts, gets met with the general \"oh, it\'s just a bunch of obsessive fanbois that hate on everything related to Drew Carey/Mike Richards\".  Someone comes along and writes an article calling them out and now everyone wants to rally on their side because a person on here had beef with the author of said article?  I understand that not everyone on G-R.net is a crazed obsessed Drew Hater/Barker Worshipper, but when it seems like the stereotype fits more than just the minority does the problem lie with the forum or the person making an observation?

 

No one can ever make that claim about the GSF because the GSF and its members go above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that this piece is one of the few (if only) places on the internet where rational game show discussion can take place.  I feel like everything said about G-R.net about the membership as a whole was on point because every time I log on there and click on a random discussion topic it always seems to turn into a Dump on the Current Administration session because it\'s not how things were when Bob & \"The Dob\" were in charge.  Games have harder setups with Mike in charge and so the show has to be condemned for that.  After the Perfect Bid fiasco the show started adding new prizes to the mix and that\'s a BAD thing.  \"Pay the Rent\" is the worst game ever because it has a next-to-impossible perfect win setup and thus THAT has to be bitched about.  Let any of the aforementioned have happened while Barker & Roger still had control and you wouldn\'t hear a peep from G-R.net\'s membership.

 

It seems like because a couple names were cited as examples of the extremity of G-R.net\'s membership people now want to cry foul because a couple users don\'t make up the whole majority.  I do agree with that, however the site didn\'t gain the rep they did for no reason.  That\'s all I\'m saying.  Don\'t double back now because the author of the article\'s integrity is being questioned.  I feel like the man was speaking the truth because what he wrote about is the tone I get every time I log onto that site.  Of course that\'s not the case with the entire membership and I don\'t feel like that\'s what he was getting at with the article.  But we all know the old saying...it only takes a couple bad apples to spoil the bunch.

[PYLdude]

There was a much better way to get his point across. There isn\'t anyone arguing that GR is being criticized unfairly. That doesn\'t mean everyone has carte blanche to say whatever they want without repercussions. Especially when someone\'s criticism is under questionable pretenses.

[GrandGame1440]

Another response by said author has been posted: http://gameshowgarbage.com/response.html

[WarioBarker]

So...golden-road.net is a site that, when mentioned around these parts, gets met with the general \"oh, it\'s just a bunch of obsessive fanbois that hate on everything related to Drew Carey/Mike Richards\". Someone comes along and writes an article calling them out and now everyone wants to rally on their side because a person on here had beef with the author of said article?

There\'s a difference between pointing out errors and blatant personal attacks. The original version of the induction had personal attacks against several prominent site members, and the picture showed Steve Gavazzi\'s name and avatar. 

 

I feel like everything said about G-R.net about the membership as a whole was on point because every time I log on there and click on a random discussion topic it always seems to turn into a Dump on the Current Administration session because it\'s not how things were when Bob & \"The Dob\" were in charge.

When it was discovered that Roger was fired, and after the meal Marc and John had with Drew (they mentioned it on a Stu\'s Show episode; apparently, Drew -- who had invited them to a meal -- kept going on and on about Second Life and wanted little to do with discussing Price), Marc made the decision to not try and establish contacts/friendships with those who replaced Roger. That was his decision.

 

Games have harder setups with Mike in charge and so the show has to be condemned for that.  After the Perfect Bid fiasco the show started adding new prices to the mix and that\'s a BAD thing. \"Pay the Rent\" is the worst game ever because it has a next-to-impossible perfect win setup and thus THAT has to be bitched about.  Let any of the aforementioned have happened while Barker & Roger still had control and you wouldn\'t hear a peep from G-R.net\'s membership.

Two things I should point out:

* If any of these things had happened while Bob and Roger were in charge (or just Roger), either A) they would\'ve done those in a completely different manner or B) they would\'ve done it the same way and the fans would\'ve joked that they had gone senile.

* The \"Perfect Bid fiasco\" was a direct retaliation to Golden-Road. It\'s been well established, I think, that a G-R member named Ted (Slauson?) had been the one to give Terry Kneiss that bid (although he later tried to tell him $23,500). Drew\'s reaction to the moment on-camera, and the general reaction backstage, was that of mayhem and a thought process that the fans had gotten their revenge for Roger\'s forced ousting (i.e., there was something kinda hinky and Drew thought it wasn\'t going to air because \"somebody f*cking f*cked us over\"). That was when they decided there needed to be a slew of new and strange prizes to prevent it from happening again.

** Going back to Bob and Roger, Barker would\'ve treated the moment as crowning proof that watching the show every day pays off. You sell the moment as hard as you can and celebrate today; let S&P worry about the legalities tomorrow.

 

Seidelman does have some points, but they weren\'t expressed that well.