Talk:The GAMe PLACe

From CWCki
Jump to: navigation, search

To do

  • Chris's comments on his days at the Game Place
  • why he got banned
  • picture that was taken at Game Place

The Mimms & Lucas Q&A posts are on CWCki now, link there instead of linking the entire text of the posts in the Sauces.--Champthom 05:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

While it's good to acknowledge that the information came from the Q&A posts, it's crucial to post EXACTLY which post so 1) people do not have to read all the posts just to read one, 2) to see the context Lucas and Mimms were answering these questions and allow the reader to draw a conclusion based on their responses as they were originally presented.

Yes, the Q&A page needs some sub-headings to allow for direct citations so fix that and then start directly citing posts. Srsly guys, I expect a bit better. --Champthom 17:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone else think that before going behind the counter the manager Micheal Schnider probably wanted to get rid of him due to his attitude towards the younger players there. Since he was complaining he got paired up with novices when he was a volunteer "gym leader", which back when there was a TCG league in my town the UK(6-8 years ago) I can remember it was part of "gym leaders" responsibilities to assist members of the TCG league and teach them the rules and such.

It would be bad for store if they had a slight figure of authority(Chris) there being a jerkass to the younger children who want to learn how to play the card game better. Knowing Chris he was probably battling the newcomers and rather than practice battles where you would guide them step by step on an equal level(e.g. In his position I would have an extra,weaker deck like a starter deck so I don't win regardless and not play to my best ability) he probably used his best deck and played all-out, discouraging newer players.(Drlugae 22:10, 18 March 2009 (CET))

As he considers 8 year olds to be equal competition, I'd say that would be correct yes. Him going behind the counter was probably the straw that broke the camels back more than anything. But we'll see if they want him back or not.--UncleBastard 22:18, 18 March 2009 (CET)
  • That could be a factor, but I think the main reason they got rid of him was because he was acting as an employee. He thought he could get behind the counter and do shit, while he was actually just being used as a gym guy. Being an ass to kids isn't really a reason to ban people, but I do think you are right to some extent. I wouldn't want Chris having any power in my cardshop if I owned one...

- Besides that, the fact he took his mom to the store to question people must have really ticked michael off. He was also starting to use hard-core lines against Mimms, like "that's something you didn't know about this Chan before, right?" Game-shop employees are usually underpayed and quite sad, so I don't think they want to have to deal with autistic shit like this...RachmaninovDESU 22:23, 18 March 2009 (CET)

Arguing with kids

I'm really curious about this argument Chris had with these kids. The details are a little vague at the moment. Glorious Tentacularity 10:00, 14 November 2009 (CET)

  • I don't think it was one time, just a general pattern of Chris arguing. Anyone with a PVCC account, start posting the Q&As from that thread with Lucas and Mimms onto this page. --Champthom 15:07, 14 November 2009 (CET)

"The Wii Incident

Isn't it possible that this is just something we don't know about yet? It's nice to think we know it all, but it's possible that Mimms simply wasn't there when some shit went down. I think we should mark this as an assumption at best, until we can gat some concrete evidence from either Chris or the Jew that this is authentic. Thelieisacake 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

  • the issue with asking Snyder is that he may not divulge that information, though I am kinda interested in knowing what the said incident was, Sinisterminister 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

About the Owner

Unless the owner is directly involved in one of Chris's antics, he got no place being here in this wiki. Any info about him (real or not) will be removed in the sake of clarity. Griffintown 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's rather ironic that Chris is accused of being a "child pornographer" in front of this game store that just so happens to be owned and operated by a registered sex offender. --Uhuru 17:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Prove it. Do you have a picture of the owner in the store fitting the one found in the police directory? Griffintown 17:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Lightburn's work address and THE GAME PLACe are in the same location. He's right. --MaxTehManyula 17:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No shit :-P --Uhuru 17:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. How this is directly related to Chris? Griffintown 17:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not relevant at all, we don't give Megan's address, or the Wallflower's name for a reason, also he hasn't had anything to do with Chris,given that Shylock and Lucas/Mimms are the only one's who ve made Chris's videos, so it's totally irrelevant. Go start your own CWCikitruth if you want to bitch about it being otherwise-Kei 17:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, first of all, one could see this article as one big advertisement for The Game Place. Not saying it necessarily is, but I've seen many posts about people taking trips to c-ville in order to view the Chris-related sites. Also, not really a justification, Michael Snyder has implied that Chris was being a child molester and was trying to take pictures of kids. Kind of funny that his boss just happens to have been caught in a police sting where he tried to meet up with a 14 year old girl. I'm not necessarily saying that this needs to or should be here but I'm bored. Sue me. :-P --Uhuru 17:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't frame things any diffrently than how we do with the other location ones: we wouldn't give a fuck if B-Manajerk IRL was a convicted felon; he has nothing to do with Chris that's worth noting, apart from having kicked him out. If it's stuff about others, whether Schroeder or Lightburn, it doesn't belong in this site, we aren't doing a Charlottesville wiki you know. Also maybe if you'd tried talking first we might have been more apt to listen to you.-Kei 18:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • In the same vein as Griffintown, We're not ED or for that matter, /cwc/. We don't give a shit if The GAMe PLACe's owner is a kiddie piddler, it has no relevance to the article. We're focused on Chris, not the antics of others. Also, sins of the father shall not be passed onto the son, etc. We don't approve of that shit here but it's not really our place to call it out unless Chris is involved. It's like adding all the shit George W. Bush has done (cocaine use, etc.) to his article when it's absolutely pointless. Leave that shit for /cwc/.--Champthom 18:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Take a chill pill guise. It isn't that big of a deal. If you guys are gonna make a big fuss I guess I'll just go back to vandalizing userpages. Like I said, I'm bored right now. Would anyone want to join my DDO party? --Meenween 18:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that one guy keeps making new accounts to add that shit to the article. Can we please lock it until he goes away? --Lime 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I'm sick of reverting his edits.--trombonista 01:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lock this page

I don't understand why this hasn't been already done. Seriously, the recent changes page is spammed with trying to undo all the vandalism. Bill Lumburg 15:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So anyway

Now that the GAMe PLACe has become relevant again and Chris had built a conspiracy theory around it being the trolling hub and a ploy for the owner to molest children, I'm thinking this article needs an overhaul. Anyone else want to do it, or should I? --Old meme 03:39, 10 August 2011 (PDT)

  • I agree, it needs to be put in here some how that Chris believes some pretty awful things about his ol' favorite store. It should also probably be mentioned that if the Ban was lifted, he'd probably still go back there... I'd do it, but I have no idea how we should go about adding this tidbit of information. Do we just want to add another section? Or just try to shove this bit in some where?? --4Macie 10:21, 22 August 2011 (PDT)


Looking at the February Facebook leaks, it would appear that Chris has taken a 10% off coupon for the game place, added messages to it encouraging people to avoid the store, made several copies and is distributing them at his usual hangouts...Should something about this be added to the article? There's a post by chris about it as well as an image of the edited flyer here: For that matter, should the game place be informed? (I'm not sure if we really want chris to get put in jail here since it'd stop the comedic output) Pretty insane that he's still doing shit like this when he has an outstanding court case for his actions against them.--IThrewTheFrisbee 17:20, 29 February 2012 (PST)

Name Change

The article says that the store's "currently named Cville's Hobbies, Games, and Toys."

Any indication that this is because of its online association with Chris as The GAMe PLACe, which would be lulzy as hell? --Thepicklesuitintheman 20:43, 6 January 2014 (PST)

Pretty unlikely. The name change came when Mike bought the place from the pedofork guy. And I suppose the new name shows that it doesn't just sell video games. Eamoo 09:02, 7 January 2014 (PST)

16 Jan 2004 Pokémon TCG flyer

Someone on the forums turned up a 16 Jan 2004 email of a proposed Pokémon TCG flyer from Chris, sent from Bob's address to a John Crowl (or Crowll, not sure). I'm not sure if it is important enough to add to this article, but I extracted the attached file, uploaded a PNG of it, and archived the email on my user page for posterity. -CWCTime (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No shit is too minor. Presuming that this email is authentic, it's content should be copied to Chris emails 2004-2006. While the authenticity of several Chris related pastebins have come under suspicion on this wiki, I don't see a reason to be suspicious of this one. As far as I gather, the email address that Chris uses in this paste bin hasn't been known to the CWC community until Chris posted it on Facebook a couple of days ago, so a forger shouldn't have known it. Likewise, the email in question is fairly innocuous; I find it hard to think of a reason for forging something like this.
I'd like to know if there are any objections to having the CWCki regard this email as authentic. If not, it should be added to the list of Chris's emails and a brief mention of it should be made on this article. - NegaCWC (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The pastebin was put up anonymously on 4 Feb 2012, so someone had to have known about the email on that day or earlier but apparently kept it very quiet. Are leaked emails typically verified? -CWCTime (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
There's isn't any official CWCki policy regarding how to verify the authencity of a leaked email. As I see it, the rule of thumb here is that if the leaked email was revealed to the public by a person which the CWCki regards as reliable (i.e Champthom, Alec or Marvin) than it's considered legit. While the email wasn't leaked by someone that is considered to be a reputable source, as I said before it's hard for me to see it as a forgery. Therefore, I think it should be treated as genuine on the CWCki, but I'd like to see if there are any objections before taking further steps. - NegaCWC (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I prefer that information be vetted by someone in the know, like canine or myself. I'm not familiar with this e-mail. It's entirely possible it's real, I don't really see the huge benefit of making up something that's pretty trivial when it comes to Chris. My only issue is that there are people who enjoy making up fake Chris content to screw around with people, I know I've seen people claim they've made up stuff on the CWCki and that it's still there but wouldn't reveal what it was. It could very well be real, again I doubt someone would make something that insignificant up, but I personally prefer err on the side of reason. If you insist on having the e-mail, I would have a disclaimer saying that it's a supposed e-mail and that people can judge for themselves if it's authentic or not until we can actually can do so but personally I would prefer to not have it.--Champthom (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Not objecting to it and I find it genuine, but can't find the posts. Alan Pardew (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If you're referring to the CWCki forums posts and the pastbin, the links are in the first edit of this comment thread. If you're want see confirmation from Chris that this is indeed an email address of his, see here. - NegaCWC (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)