The missed post from woodle

[bdubyah]

If he would have just shown them and said they weren't ready and all that, he'd probably have been fine. But when he literally turns it into clickbait with that videos thumbnail, that's where he messed up. That causes confusion, as if there wasn't enough already, with people that weren't up-to-date on the new release schedule where 3.0 was not bandits anymore. He tried to use it for his own gain, plain and simple. That's likely where TFP has an issue. They asked him to remove or heavily edit the video to fix it, and he said no.

Now if TFP didn't want them shown in any capacity at all, then yeah, they messed up leaving them in a build where anyone could spawn them in easily, knowing creators where gonna be checking for any and all new things in the game.

 

[Kyoji]

That's likely where TFP has an issue. They asked him to remove or heavily edit the video to fix it, and he said no.

I don't understand. Where did you get that from? I saw a forum moderator say the following:

But what happened happened, and the devs don’t see it as productive to remove footage that’s already been seen.

Is there somewhere a dev asked for it to be removed? If that is the case then that doesn't seem good for the content creator to keep up something a developer asked to remove in good faith.

 

[bdubyah]

I don't understand. Where did you get that from? I saw a forum moderator say the following:

Is there somewhere a dev asked for it to be removed? If that is the case then that doesn't seem good for the content creator to keep up something a developer asked to remove in good faith.

 

[Kyoji]

View attachment 39473

Didn't see that. Yeah I know it sucks to lose the time and effort in making the video and I'm sure it will generate a decent bit of revenue but I do think it's disingenuous to keep it up knowing it was a mistake and TFP have asked for it to be edited or removed.

 

[Kosmic Kerman]

I like Josh but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[theFlu]

But when he literally turns it into clickbait

Clickbait on youtube, what is the world turning into...?

But with that statement, sounds like an odd choice for him; I'd remove it just out of courtesy, but I can't really argue that it's doing much damage at this point anymore ...

 

[meganoth]

Reminder, I'm not native, but:
"Suffice it to say it was not intended for streamers, and by extension viewers, to see that b205 build with bandits."
Suffice it to say (= paraphrasing, not a complete statement)
Wasn't intended for // viewers to see, seems like the important part for everyone. Public wasn't supposed to see the WIP.

Wasn't intended for streamers // to see .. seems as valid (but the grammar is weird). But, is that "streamers" actually referring to:
- "the humans that participate in the program"
- "actively streaming the content to public"

"Streamers" are the persons, "streaming" is the action, "streams" are the videos. He specifically talked about the persons, not the action of streaming, nor the product, the streams.

Maybe you are trying too hard to read something else into it. If you just assume that the important part is all of it then the message is very clear.

Same verbiage, "wasn't intended for streamers", but can refer to both "they were never supposed to have access to that version at all" or "they weren't supposed to stream that version".
The first one would be a "we messed up, or someone hacked us", the second would put the blame on the streamer still or bad comms in between.

 

[theFlu]

Maybe you are trying too hard to read something else into it.

Not really; I don't care. I just can't consider that to be an actual admission of fault / absolution of JaWoodle... it's an off the cuff remark, would not hold in court.
"Streamer" is a person yes, but "it wasn't for streamers to see" makes no sense, no-one would care if they saw it. "It wasn't for streamers to stream" would make more sense, ties it to the "nor public to see" -part too. But places no blame.

Weird situation, since the info is already out, I might've asked JaWoodle to add a "message from the devs" to the video, something along the lines of: "Oops, that's a bit of a leak. Bandits and chicken coops aren't obviously ready yet, but enjoy the preview! Plenty of work to do before they go public!"

Dunno if that makes sense anymore if the JaWoodle refusal is a reality...

 

[meganoth]

Not really; I don't care. I just can't consider that to be an actual admission of fault / absolution of JaWoodle...

Absolution of Jawoodle? I would say JaWoodle's only known misbehaviour is not editing the video after being asked to do so. And that quote does not absolve him from that.

The message said a version was released to streamers that they didn't want to release to streamers. Unless you assume someone hacked them (a pretty silly idea since in that case they surely would have involved the police already and not asked JaWoodle nicely at all) the only one who releases those versions is TFP themselves. Ergo a mistake made by TFP, ergo their fault.

it's an off the cuff remark, would not hold in court.

How lucky then that we are not in a court.

"Streamer" is a person yes, but "it wasn't for streamers to see" makes no sense, no-one would care if they saw it.

Yes, they would if they expected streamers to look through the files and find those bandit skins and publish them. I.e. exactly what happened now. And also similar to what happened a few years ago when they left bandit skins in the game as well. They surely had precedent to know what could happen.

"It wasn't for streamers to stream" would make more sense, ties it to the "nor public to see" -part too. But places no blame.

Weird situation, since the info is already out, I might've asked JaWoodle to add a "message from the devs" to the video, something along the lines of: "Oops, that's a bit of a leak. Bandits and chicken coops aren't obviously ready yet, but enjoy the preview! Plenty of work to do before they go public!"

Dunno if that makes sense anymore if the JaWoodle refusal is a reality...

 

[theFlu]

The message said a version was released to streamers that they didn't want to release to streamers.

No it didn't, you're reading more words into the statement than there are. The statement is terribly worded if it intends to state that.

if they expected streamers to look through the files and find those bandit skins

exactly what happened now.

Nitpicking, but the bandits were spawnable via the F6-menu. No need to edit the files, at least that's what I understood from the vid.

 

[LittleNightma]

It's a teachable moment for everyone involved. TFP should be more careful when giving builds out and JaWoodle should maybe question what he posts a little bit more. Either way we can ponder about what may have been said that's not public all day long, but at the end of it it's between the devs and Woodle, not us.

 

[permadeathpayday]

Good riddance.

Tell me your biased without tell me your biased. Did he ban you from his channel or something? You seem super mad about it.

Not biased, not banned, not even mad — just literate. I quoted the man contradicting himself in his own video and your counter was 'u mad tho?' If pointing out that someone broke an embargo reads as 'super mad' to you, I'd hate to see your reaction to a parking ticket. Also it's 'you're.' Both times.


And before anyone quotes his 'I wasn't aware those elements weren't meant to be shown' line at me, read his own video. He opens it saying he's 'not going to bury the lead,' then tells us the devs explicitly said bandits aren't in 3.0. You can't claim you didn't know you were showing unreleased content in the same breath that you narrate it as unreleased content. Pick one. A pinned correction doesn't un-ring the bell, and it sure doesn't explain the rest of his own post: TFP and BHVR asked him multiple times over the weekend to take it down or even just heavily re-edit it. He declined all of it. He flat-out admits he knows this might cost his creator access — and he chose the video anyway. That's not a guy who made an honest mistake and felt bad. That's a guy who did the math, decided the clout was worth burning a relationship with the studio, and is now framing it as taking the high road through 'proper channels.' Declining every version of 'please fix this' is not the high road.

 

[Rotor]

I will summarize.... Publicity!

 

[Riamus]

Which is not "TFP stating they messed up", it only states "b205 wasn't meant to be seen by the public".

b205 was (presumably) used to help streamers setup for the job, this wasn't a fault, it was as intended. From there TFP might have messed up timing for the update, JaWoodle may have messed up updating, etc etc.

I see it the same as meganoth. It states that the version wasn't intended to be seen. That's an admission that they made it available when it wasn't intended to be made available. That's an admission of having made a mistake. We aren't really talking about blame. TFP isn't blaming anyone for it (at least not publicly; they may internally blame whomever it was who released the wrong version to streamers). But TFP did admit to their mistake, which is what I was saying.

As far as JaWoodle goes, he's intentionally ignoring a fair request from TFP. Why? Just to get views? Probably. He cares more about that than being courteous or considerate. But that's between him and TFP. These threads shouldn't even exist. It is really no different from discussing moderator actions, which is not allowed.

 

[theFlu]

It states that the version wasn't intended to be seen.

Yes.

That's an admission that they made it available when it wasn't intended to be made available.

No.

The reasonable middle option is still open: it wasn't intended for streamers (to show), but it was intentionally released as a build to setup their streaming/process with. To pre-check authentication, compatibility, etc etc. Basically under NDA. Making the error entirely Woodle's.

"The man wasn't supposed to be dead." is a pointless statement in a murder trial. That part isn't under dispute. Bandits weren't supposed to be shown. It doesn't solve the trial.

Dunno about JaWoodle's thought process ... friendliest I can imagine is "the cat is out of the bag, damage is done, taking it down now makes me AND TFP both look bad." Streisand effect is a thing, crowds might go "Well, that's stupid...", or even "OMG TFP/BI is flexing that ■■■■ EULA to take down the vidyas!!" ... doubt it, but it's a line of thought that wouldn't be too insane.

Plus, from my PoV, it WAS a nice sneak peek, made me realize that I don't really care if the bandits have "bad" AI, I'm sure we can exploit it in all kinds of ways.. but just having that version, with less accuracy and a fix to their jamming guns, felt kinda all right for the game.

 

[HammerDano]

Has anyone explained how THAT version went out? but only to Josh... the guy many have blamed for starting the "■■■■ storm"?


I still think this was a clever ploy to get a free bump in publicity...a chance to show Bandits and The chicken coop, and get feedback...without it "coming" from tfp/bhvr.

 

[FenixMatariki]

I also enjoyed the sneak peak, shuts the mouths of anyone trying to say TFP were never actually working on bandits.

Bit of a messy situation all round, hopefully it gets resolved in a way all party's are happy with.

If the bandit looks are changed before full release of them, i hope they keep one that looks like these trolls as a nod to this situation.

 

[Old Crow]

I understand that he missed you something and posted something on YouTube but give him a break I've watched this guy for years this got me interested into this game it made me buy it and I bought this game for other people to play with me about 20 or 30 times. If it wasn't for Jay woodle I wouldn't have got this game. He's been an inspiration and he's probably has made you guys gain revenue in 7 Days to Die more than you ever knew.

Huh?

 

[Riamus]

The reasonable middle option is still open: it wasn't intended for streamers (to show)

It specifically says to see. Not to show.

"not intended for streamers, and by extension viewers, to see that b205 build with bandits"

Remove "and by extension viewers" and you get "not intended for streamers to see that b205 build with bandits." That's very clear.

"And by extension viewers" is an amplifying phrase, building on the main subject (streamers). The statement remains true if you remove that phrase because they are a primary subject with a secondary subject that, thanks to "by extension" applies only as an added subject. I probably am not explaining it well, but basically, in English, that statement means that streamers weren't intended to see that build. And by extension means that if streamers weren't supposed to see it, then neither were viewers since people viewing a stream can't see what streamers can't see (and show). So, yes... streamers AND viewers were not intended to SEE the build. That of course means streamers weren't intended to show it either, but that's implied and not what the sentence is directly stating.

 

[seven]

Has anyone explained how THAT version went out? but only to Josh... the guy many have blamed for starting the "■■■■ storm"?


I still think this was a clever ploy to get a free bump in publicity...a chance to show Bandits and The chicken coop, and get feedback...without it "coming" from tfp/bhvr.

A few other streamers have mentioned they had downloaded an earlier version, but were told to download an update. They did. Josh apparently didn't. Was it an honest error? Probably. Should he have deleted the video when requested? How does that saying go, something about biting hands...