Austin Lindgren is ShadePlay23

on March 22, 2008 - 1346 Views

I have been threatened and insulted by Austin Lindgren, aka ShadePlay23 from ShadePlay23’s GameMakerSchool. ShadePlay is not 26, 27, 23 or even 19 as claimed at various locations.

Austin, aged 12 is from Lewis County, Washington state. This is supported by evidence provided from a highschool athletics profile and “The Chronicle”, a local newspaper which even includes a nice snap of ShadePlay2312.

This is the same ShadePlay who earlier today claimed “And according to Faltzer, you also lied about your age too.” and then provided no evidence to back it up. For the record I am 17, soon to become 18.

I could post more however ShadePlay23 has apologised and has admitted that this him and has asked that I do not spread his personal details around the Internet, and as a minor I will respect his wishes.

“I really want to apologize about the fight we had earlier. And that I am fine with you and the domain.”
ShadePlay23

Recent Posts

28 Responses to Austin Lindgren is ShadePlay23

  1. tuntis says:

    “Bolding wrong all the time doesn’t make you seem any more right, nor him any more incorrect. Unless you just want to use this information to your advantage (as in this current situation), then you obviously should have no reason to go around viewing Whois records, domain privacy enforced or not.”

    People view whois records out of interest. Maybe Phil thought he’d research who Shadeplay really is? And how is Phil exactly using this to his advantage? Shadeplay23 is 12, oh no. The domain argument is over. There is no “advantage”.

    “Again, YOU’re a towel. It was so strange that he didn’t do this earlier. I guess he had no argument to proceed with and just decided to run a whois search to blackmail him, right? Philleh will do just anything to get his way, right? Way to be a retarded hypocrite; get outta here. :/”

    No matter how big of an towel fetish you may have, please keep it out of this blog >:(. And capitalizing “you” doesn’t make you more right, nor me any more incorrect.

    How do you exactly blackmail somebody with their name or age? Ok, obviously he could with Shadeplay being twelve (unlike what he claimed to be), but he already made this public. It’s not blackmail.

    What exactly is this “his way”? The domain problem is over. It was over before this post.

    “It’s Wall(s) of Text; get it right.”

    Yeah, thank you for the correction, grammar naziTM!

    “Why are you here, then?”

    I’m a GMB writer. I like arguments, as long as they don’t involve random flaming.

  2. Faltzer says:

    “WRONG. Shadeplay himself released his personal information when registering shadeplay23games.com without a domain privacy solution. Anybody is allowed to use public whois records.”

    “WRONG, again. The whois registry already is public knowledge. It’s been exposed to “public knowledge” the second Shadeplay23 hit the “register domain” button.”

    Bolding wrong all the time doesn’t make you seem any more right, nor him any more incorrect. Unless you just want to use this information to your advantage (as in this current situation), then you obviously should have no reason to go around viewing Whois records, domain privacy enforced or not.

    “Maybe Phil was doing some research on who this “Shadeplay” fellow really is? Maybe he was just checking out of curiosity, seeing that it takes me seconds to type “shadeplay23games.com” into whois.org.”

    Again, YOU’re a towel. It was so strange that he didn’t do this earlier. I guess he had no argument to proceed with and just decided to run a whois search to blackmail him, right? Philleh will do just anything to get his way, right? Way to be a retarded hypocrite; get outta here. :/

    “Anybody could have grabbed the domain. Be glad it was Phil, not me.”

    Anybody that wanted to purposely deprive a user from a domain?

    “Kinda like your huge text walls don’t either?”

    It’s Wall(s) of Text; get it right.

    “Attack of the text wall, II. There’s some things I can’t argue about here: I only present arguments when I’m quite sure I’m right. It’s up to Phil to prove it, not me. Would you please tell me what arguments are still open, so I’ll recheck if I can help you close your misguided images of them?”

    Why are you here, then?

  3. tuntis says:

    Welcome to the internet!

    [or maybe I should say “goodbye from the internet”?]

  4. msr says:

    This blog is a JOKE. I’m not coming back. Close it now or get some idea of ethics. You’re waaay behind for a 17-year-old.

  5. tuntis says:

    …Yadda yadda. While it’s true that Shadeplay23 might not have wanted to disclose his private information to the general public (and thus, did not know about the whois registry), he should have. Phil here could very well (and most likely did) assume that Shadeplay23 knew about it.

    It’s Shadeplay23’s own fault, if it’s so terrible his own name and age is out in the internet.

    “You single word “No” does not give any rebutal whatsoever. It simply states your stand on the issue. Gives some true rebuttal and I shall reply.”

    Kinda like your huge text walls don’t either?

    “The simple fact that I have multiple independant arguments that support a single clause gives such a situation that one must contest all of my arguments to defeat me. This has not been so for you, tuntis. Also, “I couldn’t bother” seems like a poor excuse and offers no true rebuttal against my argument.”

    Attack of the text wall, II. There’s some things I can’t argue about here: I only present arguments when I’m quite sure I’m right. It’s up to Phil to prove it, not me. Would you please tell me what arguments are still open, so I’ll recheck if I can help you close your misguided images of them?

    I’d post a link, but since there’s the risk WordPress will automatically throw it into the mod queue… Anyways, your “Shadeplay23 impersonation” comment is in the queue, right before the comment of mine with a link to Google’s cached article. But you can get to it by googling “Austin Lindgren”. You should see the news article. Press “Cached version”. Problem solved.

  6. Aryogaton says:

    Then tell me this: If Shadeplay indeed had intentions to keep his identity private, then it is clearly seen that he did not wish for the registery to be public. With this knowledge, it is seen that if Phil, with this knowledge, would have best submitted it to Shadeplay, who consequently would not have known that his information was public. However, because of Phil’s and Shadeplay’s fight about the domain names, Phil was moved to take revenge against Shadeplay. This shows that Phil may or may not have submitted this information to Shadeplay is he had not had the fight with him. Hence, even if Phil was doing “research”, the only way he would have submitted the information in a public blog would be for malicioud intentions. Example: I have found the directory for the GMS forums a while ago by accident. I did not disclose this information, but I did warn the public, as I believed it was easy to hack the forums with the directory. Furthermore, I submitted my information to Shadeplay with the intentions for Shadeplay to take action. There was no reason to submit this information to the public unless I intended for malicious purposes. Because I did not intend for this, and I actually CARE for the forum, I submitted it to Shadeplay. Now, obviously Phil does not CARE for the forum or else he would not disclose the information. But, why harm a person of whom you are neutral to? The logical explanation is that this is Phil’s method of revenge.

    You single word “No” does not give any rebutal whatsoever. It simply states your stand on the issue. Gives some true rebuttal and I shall reply.

    If you saw no need to, thn you would have clearly stated that my other arguments have been contested. Also, after examination of your original post and my own, I have come to the conclusion that your rebuttal is only valid for one of my arguments. The simple fact that I have multiple independant arguments that support a single clause gives such a situation that one must contest all of my arguments to defeat me. This has not been so for you, tuntis. Also, “I couldn’t bother” seems like a poor excuse and offers no true rebuttal against my argument.

    I shall post an argument when I see the cached article.

  7. tuntis says:

    Actually, wanna know why the news article doesn’t work? Because the whole newspaper’s site has been defaced by some Arabic organization.

    Try accessing chronline.com

  8. tuntis says:

    WRONG, again. The whois registry already is public knowledge. It’s been exposed to “public knowledge” the second Shadeplay23 hit the “register domain” button.

    “Furthermore, why would Phil attempt to access the domain registery for shadeplay23games.com if he had no intention ofsubmitting to Shadeplay any flaws?”

    Maybe Phil was doing some research on who this “Shadeplay” fellow really is? Maybe he was just checking out of curiosity, seeing that it takes me seconds to type “shadeplay23games.com” into whois.org.

    “Would that not count as maliciously delving into an area of which the owner of that area does not wish for one to see, also known as maliciously hacking?”
    No.

    “You have made rebuttals against only one of my arguments, and made one of your own. However, you have not given any rebuttal against my other arguments. Hence, the only logical solution would be that you have no further argument against them. This woulc mean that my own non-challenged arguments have prevailed. You may continue by offering rebuttal against all of my arguments.”
    Because I saw no need to. They were either invalidated due to my responses or I just couldn’t bother.

    FYI, I posted a comment, but it’s currently in mod preview (why, why does WordPress use comment filter rules on writer accounts, too?). It contains a link to Google’s cached version of the now dead news article, and a link to my own personal copy of it.

  9. Aryogaton says:

    Also, I have posted a comment with my name and website as Shadeplay23 would have, NOT to impersonate him, but to prove how easy it is to impersonate a comment on this blog. Furthermore, the comment was not approved and was deleted, which means that the likelihood that Phil has impersonated Shadeplay has rose to about 18%, compared to the 8% before. (Please not that these numbers are estimates on my own knowledge. I may revise them if necessary)

  10. Aryogaton says:

    To tuntis: You have made rebuttals against only one of my arguments, and made one of your own. However, you have not given any rebuttal against my other arguments. Hence, the only logical solution would be that you have no further argument against them. This woulc mean that my own non-challenged arguments have prevailed. You may continue by offering rebuttal against all of my arguments.

  11. Aryogaton says:

    Also, I have asked Phil on multiple occasions to state his proof. He has not replied, and in fact he has ignored my statments and my rebuttals to his own statements.

  12. Aryogaton says:

    It has been said that Shadeplay has admitted, but that’s the problem. It has only been SAID. I shall submit when I see true proof from Shadeplay himself (that I am 100% sure of, meaning comment #3 is not included) that confirms this.

    When you find Shadeplay’s personal information in the domain registery, you have two options. Either expose this identtiy to the general publich with the knowledge that the person of which you have found does NOT want that information to be spread, OR to not disclose the information and tell Shadeplay in private of the matter. Phil had these two choices, and he choosed to do the dishonest one. Furthermore, why would Phil attempt to access the domain registery for shadeplay23games.com if he had no intention ofsubmitting to Shadeplay any flaws? Would that not count as maliciously delving into an area of which the owner of that area does not wish for one to see, also known as maliciously hacking? It was Shadeplay’s choice whether or not to have domain privacy solution, but it was Phil’s choice whether or not to take advantage of it.

  13. tuntis says:

    From what I can see, it’s been said that Shadeplay23 himself has “admit” to it himself in multiple occasions (not just comment 3). I stand by the impression that this is a fact, not fiction. If it later turns out otherwise, ignore this comment.

    “Shadeplay wanted to keep his identity private for a reason. You have no right to expose that.”

    WRONG. Shadeplay himself released his personal information when registering shadeplay23games.com without a domain privacy solution. Anybody is allowed to use public whois records.

    Ask Phil for proof. Or even better, go ask the man himself.

  14. Aryogaton says:

    This “News” is more like an attempt to crash the GMS. And guess what? Your “Chronicle” link doesn’t work anymore. Even so, when it did work, I scanned the entire article looking for “Shadeplay” and “Shadeplay23” (with GOOGLE search). Neither was found. Shadeplay wanted to keep his identity private for a reason. You have no right to expose that.

    Quote: I could post more however ShadePlay23 has apologised and has admitted that this him and has asked that I do not spread his personal details around the Internet, and as a minor I will respect his wishes.

    It seems highly ironic that You first posted his personal details, then said that you wouldn’t post his personal details. Your own post contradicts itself in a manner that completely destroys any credibility that you have had. If anything, this post is insulting yourself more than it insults Shadeplay.

    Shadeplay’s post means nothing either way. He did not deny it, but he did not support it either. It is likely that Shadplay posted because he was annoyed with the post itself, and forgot to post whether or not it is true. I repeat, Shadeplay’s post does not give any proof whatsoever either way.

    Get the Chronicle article working and show exactly where Shadeplay indeed confirms this claim, then we may continue. And I mean true proof, since YOU could have posted as your name as Shadeplay and confirmed it.

    Either way, ANYONE may have posted some random kid as Shadeplay. ANYONE could have impersonated Shadeplay and posted comment #3. Quotes do not count, as ANYONE can change a quote.

  15. Phil Gamble says:

    5-8. ShadePlay has said that it is him in the Chronicle article.

    9. I don’t see what is wrong with exposing something. Sure protecting your identity is important but a quick Google search shows all I have posted here, and more. I am unaware of the law that states you can not register a domain name because someone else is planning to buy it.
    After all the criticism thrown at me for registering the domain, surely I am allowed to through criticism back?

    IMO news about the owner of the biggest GameMaker school is the kind of thing that should be posted on gmb.

  16. tuntis says:

    Oh dear lord, can’t I wake up one morning without a million comments in the moderation queue that I can’t approve?

    Aryogaton: And here, comment number #3 (at the moment of writing this), by Shadeplay23, seems to kill any “evidence” you have.

    GMNews: you basically flame the heck out of them on your public blog/news site. Very mature indeed.

    As well as news Game Maker Blog also features comments, opinions and discussions on various, often controversial, Gamemaker and YoYo Games related matters.
    You don’t like it, you don’t like it. GMB isn’t just clean news, as you’ve come to see from numerous popular articles such as “gNAZIne, Pt. 2”! [inside jokeTM]

    Just because someone choses a different birth date or uses another alias online does not make them a ‘liar.’ It makes them a smart, cautious user.

    I have no problem if the person I’m chatting to is 4, as long as they’re mature enough (you decide if I mean “internet mature” or “mature”), but when you aren’t,
    it just doesn’t work.

    And without quoting your text wall further…

    tuntis: are you considering giving them the domain if shadeplay23 shows promise with his project?
    Phil Gamble: certainly
    Phil Gamble: if they tone down on the insults

    Anybody could have grabbed the domain. Be glad it was Phil, not me.

  17. GMNews says:

    Excuse me for butting in… but this seems a bit unprofessional. It seems to me that whenever you run into a conflict or don’t take a liking to someone, you basically flame the heck out of them on your public blog/news site. Very mature indeed.

    Also, there is nothing wrong with protecting your identity online. Identity theft is a serious problem, and many users (especially those 15 and under) are very cautious about revealing information which could be used to track them down (with good reason). Just because someone choses a different birth date or uses another alias online does not make them a ‘liar.’ It makes them a smart, cautious user.

    Also, he has every right to be annoyed. You intentionally purchased a domain which is obviously one that he should have the right to. And in case you are not aware, many countries around the world have introduced new laws and regulations which protect people against domain theft (i.e. intentionally registering a domain to deprive someone else of it who should be the rightful holder (e.g. it is their business/organization name, family name, etc.))

    And besides all that, you go on to post several details about the user in question after agreeing not to post personal details. And if he apologized, I really don’t see why there is a need to go blast him publicly. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if your actions of posting defamatory remarks, expressing hatred and distributing personal information could be considered illegal and violate the terms of service of your web host (Hostigation).

    Keep personal issues and conflicts to yourself, that is my professional opinion.

  18. Aryogaton says:

    Please note that if you are indeed slandering Shadeplay, you are breaking the United States Constitution, which states for freedom of speech EXCEPT in the case of slander and libel.

  19. Aryogaton says:

    PROOF THAT AUSTIN LINDGREN IS NOT SHADEPLAY23:

    On the GMS topic “Why Not…” Link:
    http://forums.shadeplay23games.com/index.php?showtopic=425

    On Shadeplay23’s “MyMiniCity”, it is shown that his country it England.
    Link:
    http://shadeplay23.myminicity.com/

    Now, you may not regard this as proof, but think about it. Why would Shadeplay set the country to ENGLAND if he lives in Winsconsin?

    More proof:
    During an MSN conversation with Shadeplay, I noticed that he said his time was about 2-4 hours after my own. I live in the Mountain time zone, and if Shadeplay was indeed from Winsconsin, he would live in the Central time zone. This would mean that Shadeplay would have a +1 hour difference, and I am sure that our time difference was at least 2 hours.

    I will post more proof as I find it.

  20. Aryogaton says:

    Hey Phil? How about you give some proof? Anyone could’ve posted some random kid and said that he was some random guy.

  21. Aryogaton says:

    Shadeplay, is this true? I have many erasons to say that this isn’t…

  22. Robin Monks says:

    I want to join in the fight, but have no reason to growl at either side. So, with that, I’ll start a new fight just so I can make a post!

    YoYo Games, GMTV and GMtech are all evil 🙂

    I feel better now 🙂

    Robin

  23. Faltzer says:

    Anything to get what you want, isn’t that right Phil?

  24. tuntis says:

    And FYI; while the article is now gone, here’s Google’s cached version. I have also saved my own copy for future reference (e.g. when Google’s cached version expires).

  25. Shadeplay23 says:

    This post was not made by Shadeplay23. It was made by Aryogaton. The purpose of this post is to proove how esay it is to impersonate someone’s identity and post a false cmment.

  26. Revel says:

    Well I must admit, you are quite “computer literate” for a 11 year old 🙂

  27. Shadeplay23 says:

    I have a felling that my GMC reputation is skydiving down.

  28. Danny says:

    Well, I must admit this isn’t all shocking. I mean you can’t say your 26 then 27 then down to 19 without some suspicion. To be honest my advice isn’t you shouldn’t have been rude to Phil that was a dumb idea. I don’t want to see post going off on him when all Phil did was post a link that anyone could have found. Phil didn’t do anything wrong he told us the truth and last I heard your supposed to be honest.

UA-103187421-1