- Joined
- May 5, 2020
But no mention of it? There must be a reason for that.
WWE Champions General - Despite his claims, DSP is still spending thousands of dollars on the WWE Champions mobile game
- Thread starter BT9494
- Start date
-
🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
But no mention of it? There must be a reason for that.
tzgnilki
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
because he paid for it, while begging for grocery money, just a theory
Cyber Bowling
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
I dunno, Phil paying for something that doesn't personally benefit him on top of extra social interactions seems like a stretch.
The only circumstance I see Phil bringing his parents over is if there's some chore around the house he can't pay someone to do for him/something he can't half-ass. And even then, I'd have a hard time believing he paid for them. Hell, I'd have a hard time believing he'd even let them stay in his house, based on what he did during their last visit.
I don't think he'd have any reason to hide bringing his parents out. And if anything, he'd turn it into a begging situation, using the dead parent excuse, saying he needs positive contributions to get them one last gift because he doesn't know if he'll get another Christmas with them.
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
I can see him failing to bring it up if they came out and he wanted something out of them but didn't get it, which I suspect anyways because of his weird flexing tweet.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
I'll add something to this post even if the consensus is that he's lying, just to archive a bit more:
So I forgot that DSP had another Twitter, which he created back in May 2020. (me_dsp2) If you check his recovery for that one, it's the same as his other major ones:
But if you check the recovery through phone number, instead of username, you'll get this: (I believe under some IPs it's necessary to add +1 first, in which case the result is the same)
This means that the impersonator would've needed to link the # to 2 or more Twitter accounts. That, or those "more than one" are just (TheyCallMeDSP) and (me_dsp2).
In regards to Yahoo, not only DSP's linked number is (2**) ***-**24, but also the one in question: (203) 895-1924 is linked to an account. Again, the fraud would have needed to re-link it to Yahoo as well.
If you check with an actual phone #, but not linked to the provider, you should get this:
In DSP's case:
So as someone else mentioned before, the idea that he forgot to change this option is almost unthinkable. A troll would have access to all his information and DSP would've compromised his emails while allegedly trying to strengthen his privacy, doesn't make sense.
And a purely random coincidence of the 2 last digits matching (also mentioned before) is like 1/100 of a chance.
So I forgot that DSP had another Twitter, which he created back in May 2020. (me_dsp2) If you check his recovery for that one, it's the same as his other major ones:
But if you check the recovery through phone number, instead of username, you'll get this: (I believe under some IPs it's necessary to add +1 first, in which case the result is the same)
This means that the impersonator would've needed to link the # to 2 or more Twitter accounts. That, or those "more than one" are just (TheyCallMeDSP) and (me_dsp2).
In regards to Yahoo, not only DSP's linked number is (2**) ***-**24, but also the one in question: (203) 895-1924 is linked to an account. Again, the fraud would have needed to re-link it to Yahoo as well.
If you check with an actual phone #, but not linked to the provider, you should get this:
In DSP's case:
So as someone else mentioned before, the idea that he forgot to change this option is almost unthinkable. A troll would have access to all his information and DSP would've compromised his emails while allegedly trying to strengthen his privacy, doesn't make sense.
And a purely random coincidence of the 2 last digits matching (also mentioned before) is like 1/100 of a chance.
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
This is why he doesn't have a choice but to go all out police state on his forums, the evidence is undeniable and he can't pick it apart convincingly. The only other option is to come clean, which he will never do, so it's going to be nothing but silence on the subject from Phil until the day he dies.
Wouldn't be surprised if what he was pissy about on Christmas was his parents grilling him about a mobile gaming addiction they heard about. If they know about The Incident, which Phil was stupid enough to confirm, then it's not impossible for them to know about the Champions meme.
Even if that's not the case, things are clearly not quite right between Phil and his parents if he dunked on them out of obvious anger on a platform they don't use.
Wouldn't be surprised if what he was pissy about on Christmas was his parents grilling him about a mobile gaming addiction they heard about. If they know about The Incident, which Phil was stupid enough to confirm, then it's not impossible for them to know about the Champions meme.
Even if that's not the case, things are clearly not quite right between Phil and his parents if he dunked on them out of obvious anger on a platform they don't use.
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
Is it being said that Phail is telling people to go to NotDSP's twitter to get DSPerate updates if DSPerate gets booted off his original twitter account?
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
I honestly feel super bad for Phil's parents, nobody deserves a piece of shit like Phil to even be a distant relation.
and only one child. too late to make another one. im surprised they didnt disown him already. they bought him food because they think hes doing badly moneywise there he is spending thousands on a mobile game
I wonder if the info about Phil spending thousands on a gacha game has ever reached Mr. and Mrs. Burnell. Since some detractors are severely autistic, I'd imagine that someone would have a way to get in contact with them to tell them this.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2018
I still wish I had an explanation of why the All Time Battles count continues to decrease. Right now it's 53,191, down from 56,318 on 11/23/2020.
My first thought was that it was some kind of overflow but there's no common data type that
1) would wrap around to its negative maximum and
2) has a maximum close enough to ~60,000 where a human could reasonably have a number of battles performed,
but there isn't. The power of two closest to ~60,000 is 65535, and no common data type has a range of [-65,534, 65,535]. (it's either going to be a signed int, [-32,768, 32,768] or unsigned, [0, 65,535]). So it's not an integer overflow that hit 65535 and then wrapped around to -65535.
For completeness' sake, the next highest maximum is represented in four bytes, or [-2,147,483,648, 2,147,483,647], not a reasonable number for a person to play. And the next lowest maximum is 1 byte, or [-128, 127], far too small to store the number of games.
Hypothetically, if they are doing something stupid to create a type with range [-65,535, 65,535], or effectively doing so by trying to correctly represent the amount—and it would have to be really stupid—the count would be (65,535 + (65,535 - 53,131)), or 77,879 games. But again, I can't think of anything they could do that is so stupid as to cause this.
My first thought was that it was some kind of overflow but there's no common data type that
1) would wrap around to its negative maximum and
2) has a maximum close enough to ~60,000 where a human could reasonably have a number of battles performed,
but there isn't. The power of two closest to ~60,000 is 65535, and no common data type has a range of [-65,534, 65,535]. (it's either going to be a signed int, [-32,768, 32,768] or unsigned, [0, 65,535]). So it's not an integer overflow that hit 65535 and then wrapped around to -65535.
For completeness' sake, the next highest maximum is represented in four bytes, or [-2,147,483,648, 2,147,483,647], not a reasonable number for a person to play. And the next lowest maximum is 1 byte, or [-128, 127], far too small to store the number of games.
Hypothetically, if they are doing something stupid to create a type with range [-65,535, 65,535], or effectively doing so by trying to correctly represent the amount—and it would have to be really stupid—the count would be (65,535 + (65,535 - 53,131)), or 77,879 games. But again, I can't think of anything they could do that is so stupid as to cause this.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2020
Maybe that statistic only sees back a certain amount of time, IE exactly 2 years.
So anything before that cutoff date as each month/week/day rolls around causes it to stop tracking data of anything previous. As Phil increased his roster and got more of his sweaty men he had to do less total battles, so his All Time goes down as a result of him spending more time entering payment credentials than actually playing gay bejeweled as time went on.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
It looks like it is probably only tracking matches in the 1 year-15 months range: A range of 53,191-56,318 "all time" battles with a rate of about 120-140 battles/day based on my own checks of his profile works out to 380-470 days or just over a year to just over 15 months. Seems kind of arbitrary but whatever, maybe there is something about payment disputes which expires after slightly over one year.
The alternative is that it looks back exactly one year and he was whaling much harder back then-if he averaged 145-154 matches/day before we found the tracking site (so probably more like 150-170 matches/day about a year ago) then the math would still work out. I can't prove it since we didn't discover the tracking site until more recently but still food for thought.
EDIT: The battles / day is still tanking like crazy, he's down to 53,079 "all time" and 102 matches/day. I think something weird is going on here.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2017
It may also be that some of the users he beat while they both beat it to greasy gifs deleted their accounts. If someone deletes their account, it's like they never existed so Dave will still have all his accolades (awards, trophies, points, whatever) for having beat them in the past, but the raw data may show that he won X amount of matches, because the deleted account no longer exists.
So, some people might have wised up and figured out that sweaty svg bejeweled is inferior to actual bejeweled, and decided to play sudoku instead.
Edit: Just depends on how they track and tabulate their data. It's like in some forums where if someone deletes their account, their posts may vanish.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2018
Yeah, that's probably it. Fucking annoying, though, to have a metric called "all time" actually mean "two year rolling".
Yeah, I wasn't going to post this yet because a) i want more data and b) i don't want to keep filling the thread with my posts but his battle count has gone way down.
On the other hand, he keeps adding SuperStars, and his total roster talent is growing in kind (with the addition of two 5-stars standing out especially). And the top five wrestlers by power rating hasn't changed at all. I don't know what parts of this game cost money, but if upgrading his SuperStars and talent isn't it, I might be on board with the idea he's whaling another game.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
It'll be confirmed he's whaling another game when he doesn't try to find a new guild after Nigel gets him kicked out yet again.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2020
Credit where it's due mate. What would happen if you just reverse sign that shit? Also, have you checked, if you aren't checking the dates in the reverse? From what I see, this could just be a error in data interpretation, but in the jpegs count graph, you got it right, so idk. There has to be a minus lost somewhere imho, too familiar with that shit lol.
- Joined
- May 23, 2019
Literally all of them.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2019
For Christmas if you bought at least 300 schlongcoins,there was a mini game where you could eat fruitcake out Vince McMahon's buttcrack, they had record profits this quarter alone.
Last edited: