>>29358681See
>>29358505, I'm talking about Joe's relationship with /vp/, not about Joe not covering the datamine.
As I've said before, Verlis has made it clear he does not like datamining and hacking and that he does not condone it, but he's not being a hypocrite by covering any new Pokemon it uncovers. He still maintains his views against datamining and hacking, so he's not doing a complete 180.
As for his excuses, while I agree that they don't target the issue head on, he was right in his original post that he has no obligation to credit Kaphotics.
>>29358685>if the original creator was anybody else, then yes, you're a cunt. Not necessarily. If I didn't like Hillary Clinton for example or anything she promoted, I wouldn't go out of my way to credit something to her that I don't need to and increase her popularity. That doesn't make me a cunt, that's just me not wanting someone I dislike to unnecessarily benefit off me.
>a new species of fungi you generally give credit You would have to give credit there for different reasons. That is a completely different situation. In this case, Verlisify has no obligation to give credit because it's not their IP, but in the fungi case, they have an obligation.
>Those people generally don't wish death upon the people providing the data they're making videos onI don't want anyone wishing death on anyone else and don't support that. My argument simply revolves around who is in the right here morally regarding the credit.
