Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Monday, June 02, 2008

    50th Least Hideous: Stuart Campbell

    The honour of being the first journalist to be hailed as one of the least-hideous in the games industry goes to none other than the infamous Stuart Campbell, seen here in a picture taken last week.

    It makes us sad to see that Stu’s RR Award-winning forums are nearly dead. Not long ago, he changed the rules there so only his “subscribers” could create new topics. This pissed off a lot of his forumites, who have promptly fucked off.

    You might expect us to criticise him for this, but we’re not going to. He charges his readers a couple of quid a month for the right to read his work, get emailed stuff, and to make new posts on his forum. For a writer to build up a fan base and cut out the middle man is nothing short of genius. Just as everyone silently approves of Valve selling their stuff directly to their punters through Steam, Stu has harnessed the writers’ equivalent. And we take our hats off to him for it.

    Congratulations, Stuart – The RAM Raider salutes you!


    1. Someone who fucked off12:09 pm

      It should be mentioned the fucking off has considerably more to do with the original plan, which was to charge people to post at all on a forum where it was illegal to do so, on the deletion of a large proportion of posts which disagreed with him on that subject and others, with the description of all users who didn't want to pay for a freely hosted forum as "Freeloading parasites" and with the insistence we should all "Get to fucking fuck" than with the actual plan itself.

      But don't go looking for the real story now on WOS, the entire thread has "Mysteriously disappeared"...

    2. Anonymous12:10 pm

      " Stu has harnessed the writers’ equivalent. And we take our hats off to him for it."

      Except he hasn't, because 85% of the readers and potential subscribers left because he handled the situation so badly. I hadn't seen that amount of contempt for "customers" since Gerald Ratner put his foot in it all those years ago.

      He's a great writer, but has very poor people skills. I very much doubt he could even pay the leccy bill from the amount of subscribers left.

      So heil King Stuart, lord of all he surveys. Which is currently a forum consisting of the last few desperate hangers-on.

      The most galling thing for him is that it turned out that the majority of forum readers were just putting up with his manboy behaviour because their friends posted there rather than reading the forum because of King Stuart. That really must have been a hammer blow to his ego which is why he blew his top.

    3. Anonymous12:22 pm

      "he changed the rules there so only his “subscribers” could create new topics."

      In the end, that's what happened. But there was a shit-load more to events than your small passage reveals (not least the original revelation that only subs would be able to post AT ALL). But, hey, it's not like you're particularly interested in investigative journalism, eh, Rammy?

    4. RevStu1:32 pm

      Hello! I'm rather pleased at scoring as high as 3.7 from that photo. Just a couple of minor factual corrections here - the number of WoS subscribers has INCREASED since the forum changes, and "a large proportion" of posts on the subject were NOT in fact deleted - fewer than a dozen out of over 300 were, almost all of them for being pure trolling. And indeed the original plan *was* to allow only subscribers to post at all, but I listened to a reasonable suggestion rather than a torrent of abuse and changed my mind accordingly. I do admire the commitment of certain people to continuing to tell flat-out lies about it across the internet, though. And my ego has survived a lot worse. That picture, for a start.


    5. Anonymous4:55 pm

      I'm intrigued as to what the "flat out lies" precisely are, as - sub numbers aside - comments #2 and #3 are exactly how I remember it happening.

    6. Anonymous6:16 pm

      I'm sure people are paying for the writing, and not just for access to the bootlegs of gigs & games. And yes Stuart, I can appreciate the distinction between "decade-old Japanese typing game never legally released in the Western Hemisphere and distributing a warez copy of the latest Need For Speed abomination", but I can also appreciate the difference between sharing and flogging for quick buck.

    7. I thought this post was about looks?

    8. Anonymous12:34 am

      It is of course impossible to verify any of Stu's claims since he banned even subscribers from seeing the memberlist at the site (which would allow counting of subscribers), or each others profiles (at the time in a desperate and petty attempt to stop them contact each other about any new forums which also saw the disabling of Private Messages). Both profiles and memberlist remain disabled despite Stu's insistence that it was a temporary measure for "Good Reasons". A polite thread on the matter has been ignored despite being rescued from forum obscurity 3 times now.

      While there IS a (nearly) unmolested copy of the announcement thread on the internet, it is useless since, despite the insistence only 12 posts were deleted, it's now totally missing from the site...

      Incidentally, Stu's writing since the split 2 months ago has consisted of 1 piece of new content.

    9. RevStu7:50 am

      All more lies, of course. The announcement thread, for example, is still perfectly visible on the public forum - I looked at it only yesterday. And Dudley, love, at least have the courage to put your name to your lies. Or are you scared that because I know your real name, I'd sue you for libelling me all over the internet if you admitted it?

      It's odd how much people apparently hate the way I run WoS, yet bitch for *months* when they get banned from it.


    10. Anonymous11:18 am

      Is it lies that you're selling access to bootlegs of stand-up comedy gigs, you seedy little man?

    11. Oh quick, call the fucking police.

    12. Anonymous2:42 pm

      Not really bothered about the criminal aspect, it seems a little rude for Campbell to be making money off it- especially when the business model is ostensibly about paying to see Campbell's work. And his justification of "oh these were never released" doesn't really apply when the comedians are (in some cases) themselves selling DVDs of the material.

      But I'm sure he wouldn't mind if I subscribed, copied all the subscriber only material and rehosted it elsewhere.

    13. I'm sure he wouldn't. After all, it's bonus material. The subscription is to help out a very good games journalist, blacklisted by the publishing house who near enough have a monopoly on his profession.

      I don't like what's happened to Stu's forum, but I'll still give him some pocket money once a month because he's by far the most interesting games journalist out there.

    14. RevStu9:44 pm

      Oh, how I love watching the whiny know-nothing hypocrite twats faking outrage on someone else's behalf without even checking the facts. You might be interested in the rather more important opinion of the person who actually owns the rights to and sells the DVDs of the shows concerned:

      "My feeling is that these sort of things do not harm what I am doing, and can even help keep the word alive, so I don't have a problem with them being on your site."
      - Chris Evans, Go Faster Stripe.

      So, y'know, if you're not too busy or anything, go fuck yourselves. Thanks!

    15. Anonymous11:39 am

      Did you ask permission BEFORE you decided it was fine to SELL THEM?

    16. Anonymous11:43 am

      Oh, and at least one of the comedians has recently objected to bootlegs being traded at all (let alone being sold).

      Campbell, would you mind if I subscribed, then copied your subscriber only articles and hosted them elsewhere?

    17. RevStu1:33 pm

      My fee for individual answers to questions from cowardly anonymous twats is £200 per question. Please re-submit your queries via the WoS Donations page. Cheers!

    18. Anonymous3:04 pm

      I'll take that to mean that you wouldn't mind anyone doing that. Good to know!

    19. revstu3:29 pm

      I fear you have tragically misunderstood how contract law works.

    20. Anonymous11:52 pm

      So you would mind? One rule for you and another for everyone else, is it?

    21. Anonymous8:32 am

      It means he's refusing to answer the question as if he does the choices are between ruining his subscription system (more so) and being forced to reveal immense hypocrisy.

    22. revstu10:19 am

      See my reply above. I'm happy to answer all your questions on payment of the appropriate anonymous-question-answering fee.

    23. Anonymous2:05 pm

      Am I missing something here? Stu is blackballed from the country's leading games-mag publishing house, predominantly for taking them to court for re-using some of his work without his express permission. Basically, making money from his work without giving him anything for it.

      Now he's charging people a subscription for - among other things - giving away other people's work (i.e. the comedians) without giving them anything for it.

      It can't be that simple. I must be missing something. Why didn't Stu want Future to reprint his work to, y'know, keep the word alive?

      This isn't a dig believe it or not, I'm generally interested in finding out whether I'm missing the point. And Stu, unless you have permission from all of the comedians, it's not enough to say, 'well one of them said it was ok.'

      Is piracy only not a bad thing when you dictate it?

    24. RevStu6:56 pm

      See above.

    25. Ironic that you should accuse people of being cowardly and hypocritical, really.

    26. Anonymous11:58 pm

      Come on Ken, you're bored enough to actually have a blogger id, you ask!

    27. Anonymous12:20 am

      Seriously Stu, you sound like a twat. Good luck.

    28. RevStu10:21 pm

      Oh no. Some cowardly anonymous nobody on the internet thinks I'm a twat. I do believe my tiny heart is broken.

      Join the fucking queue like everyone else, dickstain.


    29. Anonymous2:15 am

      i would join the queue, but i'd be afraid you'd charge me! £20 indeed!

    30. Anonymous2:17 am

      Stuart, this is your mum - stop being a twat, your tea is ready.

    31. Anonymous11:31 am

      Fuck me, I hope Stuart's not selling Jerry Sadowitz bootlegs!

    32. Bruce3:13 pm

      Oh it's really fucking rich.

      A while ago Campbell weighed in on The Times reporting of JK Rowling suing Steve Vander Ark for plaguerism.

      "This case is sickening, carries unimaginable implications for all forms of publishing, and ought to be dismissed with utter contempt."

      Rev. Stuart Campbell, Bath, UK

      Campbell you are a cock.

    33. I still maintain that you're a cunt, though, Brucey boy.

    34. Well Jonny

      I am, at least, a talented cunt.

      Which is more than can be said for you and your disingenuous boyfriend, Stuart.

      Goodbye for now.


    35. We're both deeply offended by your comments. It's going to take an extra long spooning session before we get any sleep tonight.

    36. For the record, the only reason I think you're a cunt is because of this:

      It's pretty pathetic. Otherwise, I couldn't give a shit either way.

    37. Good. Good. :)

    38. Anonymous11:31 pm

      Um.. What's the relevance of the Harry Potter thing? Stu's dead right about that, she's trying to restrict the right of people to write about her work. She'll be suing reviewers next.

    39. RevStu6:12 am

      "Plaguerism" is a pretty funny typo, given that you've recently been caught out stealing a £195 picture of a virus on that dismal hypocrisy-fest you call a blog, Bruce. Do you think copyright law doesn't apply to the dozens and dozens of commercial images you've stolen to illustrate your senile rantings? Or do you just think it's okay to rip off people from Australia because they probably won't sue you from the other side of the world?

    40. Bruce6:23 pm

      Stu, you cunt.

      Why dont you come up to my place in Warwickshire and we can sort this out like men.

      I'll even lend you the bus fare.

      You pennyless cunt.

    41. revstu7:26 pm

      I'm confused, Bruce (and not only by your idiosyncratic spelling of "penniless"). Did you rip off the guy's picture without paying him the £196 it costs to use, or not? Once we've sorted that out I'll quite happily come and have a jolly old punch-up with you.


    42. Anonymous7:42 pm

      I do believe you're confusing the word "men" with the word "thugs" there.

      I have a book that defines words so you won't make that mistake again, it's yours for a mere £196.

    43. stephen d8:44 pm

      Stu, have you been distributing comedy bootlegs without seeking the permission of the copyright holder?

      Or do I have to pay you £2 to find out?

    44. revstu9:41 pm

      "Stu, have you been distributing comedy bootlegs without seeking the permission of the copyright holder?"

      Sigh. That's a rhetorical question, right? It's been fairly extensively covered that in the case of the ones that are commercially available, I have the written permission of the copyright holder. In the case of the ones that aren't commercially available I clearly don't - that's the nature of "bootlegs", love. They're not official and not legal.

      If the material in question ever becomes commercially available, I'll contact the owner as I did with GFS and remove them if they request it, because the last thing I want to do is damage them. (Not that it'll make much difference, since I didn't originate the bootlegs and all the places that hosted them before, the places I got them from in the first place, will still have them.)

      I love that you apparently feel you're some sort of hotshot detective for noticing that I've infringed copyright sometimes. I've repeatedly and openly admitted it - indeed, I regularly draw attention to it. I openly state on my website, on numerous occasions, that I believe copyright infringement is often not only harmless but in fact beneficial, and I act in accordance with that belief because I'm not a hypocritical cunt. Nevertheless, if copyright owners contact me (rather than some pompous internet wanker faking outrage on their behalf), I happily comply with their wishes if I'm in breach of the law.

      The difference with Bruce is that he rants and raves that copyright infringement is evil and damaging, but does it almost every day anyway, and he does it to people who are trying to earn a living from their work right now, not with 20-year-old long-deleted budget games or things that have never been available to buy legally.

      There, a nice straight answer for you. Now why don't you ask Bruce for the same thing, if you're so concerned about people's IP?

    45. Anonymous12:53 am

      You aren't just distributing them, you're selling them. How is that beneficial to anyone but you?

    46. revstu9:29 am

      Yawn. See above, lazy coward.

    47. Anonymous3:49 pm

      You're the fucking coward. Justify the fact that you are selling them (or selling access to them, however you want to phrase it, it amounts to the same thing). How are you any different from a bloke selling ripped off DVDs in the pub (or the cunts who flog CDs of similar material on eBay, who like you have usually got it from places where it was shared for free)?

      Especially, when, as pointed out above, you're the first to cry foul when someone uses your material to profit.

      But keep spinning out this "Maybe by selling this material and keeping all the money for myself it is me who is the true hero!" stuff, it's hugely entertaining as always.

    48. revstu4:32 pm

      As soon as your £200 arrives, no-name chickenshit wanker. Tired of anonymous timewasters now, not looking at this thread any more. If you've got any questions for me, ask like a fucking man. My email addresses and forum are on my website.

    49. Anonymous5:54 pm

      i.e. you can't possibly justify it. Cheers for confirming that.

      "Real men" (quite the sexist, aren't we?) don't attempt to profit off the work of others.

    50. the twirling ghost of lenin3:01 pm

      "Real men don't attempt to profit off the work of others"? Holy fucking shit, anonymous, what planet do YOU live on? Is it a far-off alien one where the whole structure and fabric of society ISN'T based on men profiting off the work of others? What galaxy is it in? Someone should probably alert the Royal Observatory about it.

      Christ, what a stupid pious tit you must be.

    51. Haha, "the twirling ghost of lenin". Excellent.

    52. Anonymous12:01 pm

      ""Real men don't attempt to profit off the work of others"? Holy fucking shit, anonymous, what planet do YOU live on?"

      Hey, you're pretty dumb! I wasn't making some comment about how society works, just referencing Campbell's "ask like a fucking man" bit and pointing out that he's in no position to question anyone else's integrity.

      But people who profit of the work of others without contributing anything themselves are cunts, and so are you if you're defending it. (And it's exactly the sort of thing that Campbell would be moaning about if anyone other than him was doing it.) Cheers.

    53. Anonymous6:07 pm

      Did you actually mention that you are charging money for this bootleg content when asking for permission, Stu?

      Also the reason you attract so much animosity over things like this is that you are possibly the most absolutely obnoxious man I've ever seen on the internet. remarkably. Everybody that knows you knows exactly why you've decided to fleece your forumites out of such an extortionate amount of money, and that is that you are so socially repugnant and downright angry that you couldn't possibly get a staffer job again without either committing suicide or being killed by your co-workers.

    54. Anonymous6:24 pm

      'If the material in question ever becomes commercially available, I'll contact the owner as I did with GFS and remove them if they request it, because the last thing I want to do is damage them.'

      Will you be giving them back a proportion of the money you made while greedily selling their work, while sitting on your backside eating sweets all day?

    55. Anonymous10:44 pm

      As someone who works on the kinds of things Stu pirates on his site, I keep a close eye on his site on the very slight offchance that he ever decides to pirate anything I've been involved in.

      It's happened before, and the person involved is being royally fucked.

      I hope and pray to God that Stu rips off some of my work one day, because I'd love to sue this fucking child minded prick into oblivion.

    56. Anonymous3:29 pm

      Ha ha. The World of Stuart. A bunch of men of only limited intelligence, convincing themselves they are all geniuses because they don't watch Big Brother or read the Daily Mail.

    57. Anonymous10:43 pm

      We all know Stu is still reading these comments, so I'd like to take this opportunity to call him:-

      Flat-topped Prick
      Backwards Child
      Awful, AWFUL Writer

    58. Anonymous8:44 pm

      Stu, have you ever said 'I love you' to anyone?

      Are you a virgin? You are aren't you? It would explain so much.

    59. Anonymous11:28 pm

      Stu is currently making a mockery of himself after he came to a forum slamming everyone for calling out errors in one of his articles. He's even resorted to making fake accounts (IP matches proved this), pretending to be "other" people to defend his writing.

      The more this guy types, the more pathetic you realize he is. Oh, his 30,000+ games he claims he has. He's counting his ROMs.