Talk:SCAW: Superstars of CAW

Opinion
ok.... i shouldnt say it sucks since i basicly dont like shows with caws based on celeberties and famous fictional characters, and danny jackpot. and fuck me?.... i will take critics. im a fan of leagues with ORIGINAL CAWS, and GOOD STORYLINES. i also like shows with some well known caws on it, exept overrated ones.

I just dont like SCAW

The Subcriber Base Part
The sub base claim stays since its a legit claim. Lonestarr was found on the video in question applying for more subs, and around the same time as that comment, his subscriber amount went up by 400. Wally The Masked Admin (Talk) 12:23, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'll get anywhere arguing with an admin, but it really isn't relevant information. Regardless of Sub4Subs or not, it is still one of the most popular CAW leagues around today, the article never claims 2nd most popular, which is what you're trying to dispute. Also, there's no proof Lonestarr did that more than once, and the rule is innocent until proven guilty. Burden of proof that more than 400 or so of his subscribers are bots is on you. SSJ5Gogetenks 05:24, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant. Regardless if its only one time, it throws doubt over any claim of popularity. It doesn't matter if Lonestarr did it once or a thousand times, it taints any claim of the amount of subscribers and makes the promotion look bush league. Wally The Masked Admin (Talk) 09:25, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

The only claim of popularity in the article is it being "one of the most popular CAW Leagues on Youtube today." What if I remove it from the article. Would that allow the subscriber section to be removed? SSJ5Gogetenks 11:06, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Gogetenks. Everything in a company's history or a person's life on the real Wikipedia is documented, whether its positive or negative. Such should be the case here. Lonestarr made the choice to get subscribers the cheap way, and it comes with consequences. Its gonna stay regardless of whether or not the page says SCAW is popular. Don't blame us, blame Lonestarr for making that mistake. ~ Amez

To Gogetenks and Lonestarr regarding the Sub Base section
The initial version of the Sub4Sub claim section of the article will be staying over Lonestarr's revised version. We've provided sourced evidence that he does use Sub4Sub, so there's no need to say "SOME PEOPLE THINK HE USES SUB4SUB". That'd be the equivalent of going on Wikipedia and putting "SOME PEOPLE THINK THIS GUY IS A SERIAL KILLER" on Jeffrey Dahmer's article. Furthermore, our "character being in question" is completely irrelevant. Whether or not we're nice people doesn't change the fact that we have irrefutable evidence that Lonestarr artificially bumps his subscriber count using Sub4Sub channels. Whether he did it once or 500 times doesn't matter either.

So, please, leave this version in: ''It was discovered on April 24th, 2011, that Lonestarr022 uses Sub4Sub channels to artificially boost his subcriber count. So whether or not SCAW is truly the second most popular CAW fed is up for debate.''

as opposed to this one: ''Some users have made accusations that Lonestarr022 uses Sub4Sub channels to artificially boost his subcriber count. Some have questioned the fact the fact that SCAW is truly the second most popular CAW fed is up for debate. However, the character of these accusers are also in question by other individuals.. ''

Kay, but can we drop the rapist part? SSJ5Gogetenks 15:48, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

No, the rapist part stays because there's no proof that the man in the article is not Lonestarr022. Provide proof that the man in the article isn't Lonestarr, and I will remove it. It stays until then. Its important that people know the truth about Lonestarr, that he likes to fuck kids and then kill them and rape their corpse, because he's a dangerous individual.

Your logic is retarded. I could say that the man in the article is Kingpatch (just a random guy off the top of my head), and then ask you to prove that it is not Kingpatch. But now I see you've changed the link to a clearly photoshopped image, which is even worse. You're using a terrible quality image from Lonestarr's Myspace, when an official image taken while he was in police custody would be decent quality and couldn't be found on sites like Myspace and Facebook. SSJ5Gogetenks 03:58, May 21, 2011 (UTC)