karljobst

My original responses contained a lot of annoyance because I didn't come here to argue with people about my interpretation of a 1989 FTC ruling. I came here to answer questions and learn things from the people here that would help me in the future. Apologies for that. Just letting you know I'm going to be doing a follow up video in September and all of the known inaccuracies (including this) will be corrected.

Well if anyone has information that they think would help make things clearer for me, or might be useful, just send me a message. Thanks. And thanks to those that already have.

I read the entire FTC ruling on it, word for word. they have the exact information. It was not careless of dishonest in the slightest. It really seems like you just want to argue. I appreciate it and everything but I didn't come here for that. I would love it people want to discuss or teach me something about video game collecting.

Well in this specific case though I literally read the FTC ruling. I gave them the exact information. And if you watch people react to the video, they always respond to the LA times article or the FTC rulings well before my 2nd cents are put in after. Had I not have done that (showed and read the literal ruling from the FTC report), and I just said they were guilty of fraud. I would definitely take that criticism more seriously. I obviously wasn't trying to hide, be manipulative, or fool anyone. It's quite clear.

2) Did it though? Most people aren't this pedantic. The video basically got universal acceptance. I haven't really seen any criticism of being sensationalist. the great thing about the video is that it wasn't really my statements that get people upset. It's the evidence I present. My opinion really carries little weight. The video did exactly what it was intended to do, start a conversation about what's happening. It brought awareness to the situation, and almost everyone agrees something fishy is going on and it should be looked into. This is definitely something we will disagree on, but if you are such a perfectionist that everything has to be literally true it will be a big hamper when it comes to creating videos with a narrative you want to express.

I believe I have a good understanding of how youtube viewers take in information because it's my career. You're not wrong, these things aren't the same. But if I said 'charged by the FTC for fraud' the impact on the viewers would be the same.

Sorry if some of my answers seem blunt. I didn't come here to argue. I came here to learn about any facts I've got wrong about collecting, or anything relevant. And also to give you my opinion/thoughts/reasoning. It's fine if you disagree but we probably won't get anywhere arguing about it.

The FTC believed them to be guilty and charged them. I'm happy to agree on these facts, but I don't see the point of us arguing about what words you think I should have used in the video that's already posted? I believe my statements to be substantially true (i.e it would change nothing if I said 'charged by the FTC', vs 'found guilty') to a reasonable person watching the video.

1. Yes, Wata clarified. Doesn't change anything. 2. Yes, Jeff left the board in early 2020. So my example was inaccurate. I never said the CC rose to the level of fraud. Please, I implore you to really pay closer attention to what I said. I said there is a 'good argument' to be made that it is fraud, which there is. See end of point 4 in relation to title. 3. I use those words to quickly convey my point. It might not be technically accurate but it changes nothing, and it's substantially true (see defamation defences). 4. You have no idea what my sources are. I showed AN example on the screen. I've heard that from multiple sources, and as confirmed it was correct. I clearly labelled it as a rumour, which is the opposite of sloppy imo. Rumours are unfounded by nature. I'm definitely interested if you have information about things I might have wrong etc, but I'm not interested in opinions about how I should or shouldn't produce my videos (respectfully :D) 5. I didn't substantiate it because it's not important or relevant. It's a tiny mention in my video about unethical business practices. People are trying to scam people, because someone hasn't been scammed 'yet' is irrelevant. Generally when it comes to points that aren't super impactful I won't care to justify my position on them. 6. The entire video shows quite clearly that journalists have been doing a poor job and are complicit in this. It doesn't need to be specifically stated (even though I specifically call out some of their behaviours). Calling a journalistic piece propaganda is directly calling out the journalist who wrote it. Trust me, if you ever attempt to make 50 minute long videos like this, you'll get things wrong. It's impossible to be 100% accurate 100% of the time. I do a lot of work to ensure what I say is correct though. I can't go back and edit a video that is posted or anything. Those mistakes are in there for good!

That post is too long for me to go through and try to work out what you want me to comment on, but I will answer any questions if you want to distil them for me. I don't hitch myself to any wagon, I use people to attain information and then I use that information to make a decision based on that alone. I only really make claims about things I can show, I've been told a lot of stories, far worse than what I described in the video. But I didn't talk about them because I can't back any of it up (yet).

Was there ever a statement about why the database was taken offline? Were concerns addressed at any point?

They cannot create a grading company like Wata without a lot of money, that's where people like Jim come in. Let me rephrase.. "It was Jim's idea to help create a grading company he can control/manipulate in order to make money". That doesn't mean people hadn't been wanting to do it previously, but he saw a way to capitalise through it. Just because something is true, it doesn't mean it should be said. The words of Deniz has impact on the market because of his position, therefore he should stay out of the market and not saying things that may impact it. This is my opinion of course. An example would be the government not telling information that might cause a frenzy in the public. It might be 'true', but the impact of what is being said needs to be considered. Private offers do not impact a market very much (because they are private). But Deniz making public private offers, now it has massive impact. Therefore Deniz should not do it.

I disagree when it comes to Halperin. From what I've heard (there is much more than what I put in the video) he does and did sit around thinking about how to make millions, and Wata was one of his ideas (I remind you he has been charged with fraud for multiple schemes). The problem I see is that in the best case scenario, people like Deniz do not understand or do not care about their responsibility as a grading company to remain neutral. They are supposed to be an objective party that only deals with the certification and quality assurance of games. They should not be impacting markets, speculating, driving prices up. This is because they have a massive conflict of interest (prices go up - more people grade games/speculate, they charge more). If you allow this kind of behaviour the end result is always market manipulation and fraud. Eventually, someone takes advantage of it. It needs to be stamped out immediately and not tolerated.

To be extremely clear, none of my opinions are informed or influenced by Pat or anyone else that was in the video. They were very helpful in answering questions I had etc. but my opinions are the result of examining all of the information I have and coming to my own conclusion. We do share sentiments on what is happening though, which is why I gave them a platform and it was good to have them included as a voice. I don't ultimately care what the price of games are, I'm not saying they 'shouldn't' be valued at millions. I care about the manipulation of the market by those with a vested interest in the prices of games going up. If all of the forces driving prices up come from conflicts of interest, it's impossible to have confidence in the market. My focus is on shedding light on unethical business practices, and full disclaimer, it should be obvious I'm not a fan of speculation. Thankfully, if you don't mind speculation and you are ok with market manipulation etc, then you should also be fine with any efforts to drive prices down. It's only fair.

I would be happy to speak with Jeff and will try to organise that shortly (I have sponsorship obligations for unrelated youtube videos so I'm not free to do anything until the end of August). I'm happy to speak with anyone.

Hi, I created an account here so I can answer questions. On the topic of Dain, I felt I was quite clear in the video that Dain was previously associated with the company but is not currently. That's why I said "the cherry on top, is that WHEN WATA Games was incorporated in 2017, Dain Anderson WAS the executive officer.". When I was talking about Jeff, I was using current tense (Meyer IS a director). I then further confirm that Dain was no longer with the business by saying "So this entire deal (when the deal took place) happened between 2 men that WERE or are directly involved with the company". I'm very careful with my words, and my words specifically mention that Dain was not a part of the company at the time of the deal taking place. I apologise for not stressing it more, and admittedly, I keep forgetting that it is very easy for people to misunderstand things. I've since spoken with Dain and nothing he did was wrong, I just felt it was important to mention for transparency. I will be doing an update and I will be making this more clear. I do believe Dain only had good intentions with everything. Jeff's statement suggests that I called him an employee. This is not correct (again, I'm very careful with my words). The reason I kept bringing up Kahn's quote was to stress the conflict of interest that arises when people associated with the company grade their own games and sell them. Being a Director is WORSE than an employee because you have more influence over the company, and there is more potential for fraud. A director grading their own games in a privileged way and flipping them without telling anyone they are a director is definitely grounds for fraud. At the very least, it should be investigated. There were a lot of assumptions about my motives or what I do and don't know (a lot of them wrong) but I would love to answer any questions you have.