Like this has anything to do with OPs questions.

Thanks. I try to explain my position in a clear and rational fashion. I'm willing to accept that what I think happened isn't what happened, but if someone presents a contrary position it's not going to convince me unless it's based on compelling data and not just random assumptions and hypothesis. Honestly I'm not sure what's up with this guy. This isn't the first time I've seen him go through extreme mental gymnastics to rationalize a fantastic position when there's a much more obvious explanation supported by actual data.

@Jacanuk:

"Not a deflection but merely a fact that you seem to look at your opinion as something else. And you know what "" means right? which is the reason I used it."

No, it's a deflection because I asked you half a dozen questions that basically wreck your argument and instead of responding to them you accused me of stating my opinion as fact.

"Also, your opinion is as mine based on the relevant facts that we know, how you interpret them does not make your interpretation a fact."

Again, clearly said in the last post it was my opinion but I used facts to back up why it's my opinion.

"The facts are Fact: There are similarities between the two reviews, certain sentences are used pretty much word for word in a few select segments, Fact: Boomguy claims that he is the original creator of those sentences (But have yet to prove that he is the actual original creator)"

Again, I'm asking you to use some basic logic here. Yes, Boomstick has not "proved" that he's the original creator. What's also true is that's literally impossible for anyone to do. It is physically impossible to "prove" that something you create wasn't created first by someone else. If that were possible, plagiarism wouldn't be a thing, because a publisher could simply request "proof" that the content was original before publishing. Content is assumed as original unless someone recognizes it as being lifted from an earlier work. That's how plagiarism works. You're cherry picking your facts to only use the ones that make your premise possible.

Fact: IGN fire/let the critic go That is all that is relevant. But as to your facts, you don´t have to point out the same thing as different facts, Also you are using your opinion as a foundation of some of those "facts" you try to pass off. It´s pretty irrelevant when each review came out, that has no bearing on the final conclusion."

Of course it is relevant. Here's why:

Fact: In order to copy something, you need access to a version of whatever you're going to copy. Otherwise it's literally impossible to copy it.

Fact: Once content is released in a public internet venue such as Youtube, pretty much the whole world has access to it. Anyone who has access to it can copy it.

You can't win a plagiarism claim if your version came out -after- the version you are claiming copied you, so yeah, the order matters.

Is it possible for someone to copy something that hasn't yet been released? Sure, if you get access to it somehow, but how would that even happen between these two guys? Did Boomstick hack Filip's computer and steal his review before he published? Do these guys have some sort of undisclosed connection where one might have shared their unfinished work with the other? How are these more likely scenarios? Sometimes plagiarism isn't discovered for years or even decades after a work is published because the only way to identify it is to find something that was published or proven existed -before- the item accused of plagiarizing it. So yeah, order matters.

"Also IGN´s behaviour is also not a confirmation of your opinion, What it means is up in the air, IGN could find it easier to get past this by simply firing the freelancer and also just apologise since the public opinion here is the key,"

Miucin wasn't a freelancer. He was staffed as their Nintendo editor and he was let go (his review was for the Switch version). Is his firing proof? No, but it goes a long way towards suggesting that Filip did something he shouldn't have. IGN is eating some crow by firing him, because they are acknowledging that wrongdoing took place on their watch. It'd be worse if they kept him, but if they had a position to defend the author why wouldn't they use it? If they can demonstrate he did nothing wrong, that comes out better for them in the end.

"Untill we hear from the actual critic , a guess is as good as the next."

Well, no, because as long as you're throwing out unsubstantiated conspiracy theories you could just say something like "he confessed, but I bet IGN paid him hush money to take the fall for the whole thing!" Again, with no data to suggest that this is true, but it's not any less ridiculous than anything else you're said is likely the case. This is how conspiracy theories work. Unsubstantiated accusation taken as fact.

"Also the critics' previous behaviour, well again it could simply be a case of googling or PR material being used, which is often used by kids who pretend to be a critic on youtube."

Sure, it -could-, but if that's true then why are you the only person who thinks this has happened? Why aren't the various gaming news sites (who by your logic would have access to this mythical material that you don't have access to) noticing that both reviewers stole their work? Hell, why would one of the lines that's nearly identical between the two reviews be critical of the game if you say the source for both is PR material? Wouldn't be PR material released by the dev/publisher only contain glowingly positive mentions of the game? How is it that you, who can't prove the material exists, is the only one who figured this out. Does that mean you are just that much smarter than all of these news outlets reporting on this story, even though they have access to more relevant information than you do?

This is how conspiracy theorists think. Nobody else gets it so I must be the smarted guy because I know what's -really- going on (even without proof).

"But I will admit it establishes a behaviour, but the key thing here is that this youtuber is a tiny unknown not very good reviewer who could have seen this as his 15min of fame that could lead to him becoming bigger, we all know the youtube kids today will do pretty much anything to become "big". And opposite you, I am not one of those that jump on the "hate the big guy" bandwagon,"

No, because you're jumping on a hate bandwagon for the Youtuber. You are going out of your way (and logic's way) to come up with an explanation where the Youtuber is somehow also at fault. You keep criticizing him like he did something wrong. You keep calling him tiny and unknown, you rag on his review, you accuse him of cashing in on his 15 minutes of fame, etc. You very clearly have a bias here, it's just directed at the guy who's most likely the victim for some reason.

"and also I doubt that anyone would be dumb enough to try this in today's internet world, it just makes zero sense."

For the umpteenth time, why? This is the question you keep failing to answer. Why doesn't it make sense? What data do you have to support the idea that an IGN staffer isn't capable of this? Yes, it's really dumb, but people do dumb stuff all the time. Plagiarism happens in levels of professional journalism and academia that far exceed the credibility of an IGN game review. Here are some high profile cases that happened in 2018 alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/health/academy-medicine-plagiarism.html

https://nypost.com/2018/01/16/daily-beast-reporter-resigns-after-plagiarism-revealed/

Just google it and you'll find a bunch. This stuff happens. That doesn't mean every accusation is valid. Each must be judged on its own merit, just like this one.

"Especially when it takes 5 seconds to google one single sentence you claim is taken from the youtuber to find a Reddit post where the same thing was being debated."

Find me any reddit post that predates Boomstick's review and has anywhere near the level of similarity that his review and the IGN review have.

"And that is without looking at the actual PR/press material handed out from the developer."

Again, it comes back to "well I don't have access to the thing I assume exists that other people have seen but clearly I'm more clever than they are that I figured it out". This is is the fuel for every conspiracy theory, the assumption that you're the only one who figured it out even though you can't provide any data to back it up.

-Byshop

Well, maybe because most use it as an entry into the industry and spend the time building their network up so they can get better jobs in the industry.

But it´s not all who have gone on too better things, look at the people from G4TV and even most from Gamespot.

So you really think someone would risk their chance by stealing a review from some random youtube in these times, I sure dont and as I pointed out the reviews are so generic it´s clear that they are read from PR material