Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Star Crisis?

24

Comments

  • LerxstLerxst Member UncommonPosts: 646
    Regardless of your take on the anonymous tipsters, the first half of the article is a history lesson which has been documented. Chris Roberts history goes back far enough for anyone who wants, to look at. Judge for yourself by the plethora of failures following his one or two major hits. You cold easily swap his name out for Peter Molyneux and the story would be exactly the same.
    Babuinix
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    laserit said:

    anonymize = to make something anonymous

    It's that simple

    Ok, now you're just being awkward.

    Handler = person that receives and organises the data.
    Viewer = person that views the data which the handler passes to them.

    To the handler the data is not anonymous.
    To the viewer the data is anonymous.

    The author requires the data to not be anonymous so they can corroborate and validate the information. They are quite possibly legally required not to pass the identity of their sources on due to data protection and are only able to do so if the source waives their right to anonymity.

    The viewer is irrelevant in this context because otherwise you are asking for the authors to basically dox their sources just because you don't believe the information you are reading. A nonsensical situation to ask for.


    Where are you off to now?

    This is the point of our contention:

    "Anonymized sources, on the other hand, would be where you have verified the people giving you the tips to ascertain their validity before persuing the matter any further and would typically be used where you have limited access to investigate the source's claims."

    It's pure horse shit

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:

    I think that you're giving too much credit here, though. As was mentioned earlier, if that anonymous source was vetted through editors and legal then that's one thing. However, that wasn't even done at The Escapist, since there was no follow-up posted. When the sources were called into question, then said they vetted them and that they have high integrity, then they faded into the shadows like it never happened. 

    I would LOVE to believe that someone did some good ole hard-nosed investigative journalism these days. However, my guess is that's simply not the case. Why do it anyway? Have you not invested a shit ton of time into a response on here only to have anyone and everyone dispute it? So regardless whether you're wrong or right, you're in a constant state of wrong AND right. It's the Internet, a great resource for wasting time and not making any actual progress. 

    But it was. How many times has this link been posted where they document how their sources were vetted?

    Four other sources (CS2, CS3, CS6, CS7) initially contacted Lizzy via email on or before Sept. 27 The emails, numbering 32 from these four individuals, were forwarded to our EiC and Publisher, who passed that info by our legal department. It was cleared and we pursued individual personal contacts beginning the following day.

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo

    I don't want to deal with suppositions, we know that they didn't print part 2 of the article but we also know that they didn't retract any of the original articles.  Whatever people want to draw from that is entirely up to them.




    Hence my last piece, you're right and wrong at the same time. The Internet is like a quantum machine. It's actually quite unfortunate since it's a great resource. The problem is that we're soooooo good at finding out information these days that a senator can't even send a pick of his penis anymore without the whole world knowing about it. We live in a world where literally millions of people knew about Paul Walker's death before the news media did. Then there are also cases where, in an attempt to remain competitive, news agencies report on false deaths, or just false news in general. 

    So there are a couple of problems with anonymous sources. First, I think people have a hard time believing that anonymity is even possible today. Secondly, if something was amiss then somebody somewhere at some lineup in some coffee shop would have captured some CIG employee spouting about how horrible it is there. Both are completely valid arguments, too. The problem is that you could argue either side of the coin on them too, so we've climbed back into the quantum machine again. 

    The other question is do you believe that even if a named source was given that people would believe it? Probably just a pissed off ex-employee, right? So now we actually require first party video evidence. However, it shouldn't be that difficult to get, right? Because this shit happens all the time. Just look what Amber Heard did to Johnny Depp. It's not like getting damning video evidence these days is difficult. You could even remain completely anonymous in doing so, too. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    CrazKanuk said:

    Hence my last piece, you're right and wrong at the same time. The Internet is like a quantum machine. It's actually quite unfortunate since it's a great resource. The problem is that we're soooooo good at finding out information these days that a senator can't even send a pick of his penis anymore without the whole world knowing about it. We live in a world where literally millions of people knew about Paul Walker's death before the news media did. Then there are also cases where, in an attempt to remain competitive, news agencies report on false deaths, or just false news in general. 

    So there are a couple of problems with anonymous sources. First, I think people have a hard time believing that anonymity is even possible today. Secondly, if something was amiss then somebody somewhere at some lineup in some coffee shop would have captured some CIG employee spouting about how horrible it is there. Both are completely valid arguments, too. The problem is that you could argue either side of the coin on them too, so we've climbed back into the quantum machine again. 

    The other question is do you believe that even if a named source was given that people would believe it? Probably just a pissed off ex-employee, right? So now we actually require first party video evidence. However, it shouldn't be that difficult to get, right? Because this shit happens all the time. Just look what Amber Heard did to Johnny Depp. It's not like getting damning video evidence these days is difficult. You could even remain completely anonymous in doing so, too. 

    Point 1. I never claimed to be right. I am just presenting the information that is available.

    We can only deal with what's available to us. Saying 'if this' and 'if that' are pointless to me because otherwise we're dealing with a myriad of variables and personal viewpoints and bias and supposition and so on.

    All we know is that the article still stands, we know is that none of it has been retracted, we know that they have documented (in quite good detail) how their sources were vetted etc, we know that's not enough for some people, which makes me believe that no matter what information was presented they would still cry foul. And that's entirely up to them.

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    Lerxst said:
    Regardless of your take on the anonymous tipsters, the first half of the article is a history lesson which has been documented. Chris Roberts history goes back far enough for anyone who wants, to look at. Judge for yourself by the plethora of failures following his one or two major hits. You cold easily swap his name out for Peter Molyneux and the story would be exactly the same.

    I have to agree with the sentiment behind this.

    The dissection of what 'anonymized' means in the context that it is being used is pointless here and only serves to turn the thread away from any other discussion.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:

    Hence my last piece, you're right and wrong at the same time. The Internet is like a quantum machine. It's actually quite unfortunate since it's a great resource. The problem is that we're soooooo good at finding out information these days that a senator can't even send a pick of his penis anymore without the whole world knowing about it. We live in a world where literally millions of people knew about Paul Walker's death before the news media did. Then there are also cases where, in an attempt to remain competitive, news agencies report on false deaths, or just false news in general. 

    So there are a couple of problems with anonymous sources. First, I think people have a hard time believing that anonymity is even possible today. Secondly, if something was amiss then somebody somewhere at some lineup in some coffee shop would have captured some CIG employee spouting about how horrible it is there. Both are completely valid arguments, too. The problem is that you could argue either side of the coin on them too, so we've climbed back into the quantum machine again. 

    The other question is do you believe that even if a named source was given that people would believe it? Probably just a pissed off ex-employee, right? So now we actually require first party video evidence. However, it shouldn't be that difficult to get, right? Because this shit happens all the time. Just look what Amber Heard did to Johnny Depp. It's not like getting damning video evidence these days is difficult. You could even remain completely anonymous in doing so, too. 

    Point 1. I never claimed to be right. I am just presenting the information that is available.

    We can only deal with what's available to us. Saying 'if this' and 'if that' are pointless to me because otherwise we're dealing with a myriad of variables and personal viewpoints and bias and supposition and so on.

    All we know is that the article still stands, we know is that none of it has been retracted, we know that they have documented (in quite good detail) how their sources were vetted etc, we know that's not enough for some people, which makes me believe that no matter what information was presented they would still cry foul. And that's entirely up to them.


    Oh, I know you weren't claiming to be right. I was simply saying that you're not wrong, but at the same time you are :) 

    As far as The Escapist and their vetting process goes, the one thing we do know is that they claim to vet their sources. It could be that they copy/pasted that straight out of a journalism textbook. We're talking about an article where there is text copied directly from glassdoor.com. I mean that in and of itself proves that source wasn't vetted. So of course we should expect that they would publish some sort of spiel about their vetting process, but we also need to accept that at least one source was absolutely, undeniably not vetted, which calls their entire vetting process into question. However, as you mention, we know that's not enough for some people either. So, again, we're back into the quantum machine. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    edited September 2016
    CrazKanuk said:

    Oh, I know you weren't claiming to be right. I was simply saying that you're not wrong, but at the same time you are :) 

    As far as The Escapist and their vetting process goes, the one thing we do know is that they claim to vet their sources. It could be that they copy/pasted that straight out of a journalism textbook. We're talking about an article where there is text copied directly from glassdoor.com. I mean that in and of itself proves that source wasn't vetted. So of course we should expect that they would publish some sort of spiel about their vetting process, but we also need to accept that at least one source was absolutely, undeniably not vetted, which calls their entire vetting process into question. However, as you mention, we know that's not enough for some people either. So, again, we're back into the quantum machine. 

    You're stating that I'm wrong as if it's some kind of fact. It's not.

    How do we know that the moon landing was not false?
    How do we know that the bible is true?
    How do we know that the twin towers were not blown up from their basements?
    How do we know that Scientology is not real?
    How do we know that The Escapist vetted its sources?

    You say that stuff was copied from glassdoor, other people say it was likely posted after the interviews and while it was still fresh in the source's mind. Who knows? The latter sounds more realistic to me as the former sounds a very risky proposition to perch your reputation on, but that's purely my opinion. Atleast I acknowledge it's my opinion, you're trying to pass off your opinion, your viewpoint on this as though it's undeniable fact.
    That's where we differ.

  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:

    Oh, I know you weren't claiming to be right. I was simply saying that you're not wrong, but at the same time you are :) 

    As far as The Escapist and their vetting process goes, the one thing we do know is that they claim to vet their sources. It could be that they copy/pasted that straight out of a journalism textbook. We're talking about an article where there is text copied directly from glassdoor.com. I mean that in and of itself proves that source wasn't vetted. So of course we should expect that they would publish some sort of spiel about their vetting process, but we also need to accept that at least one source was absolutely, undeniably not vetted, which calls their entire vetting process into question. However, as you mention, we know that's not enough for some people either. So, again, we're back into the quantum machine. 

    You're stating that I'm wrong as if it's some kind of fact. It's not.

    How do we know that the moon landing was not false?
    How do we know that the bible is true?
    How do we know that the twin towers were not blown up from their basements?
    How do we know that Scientology is not real?
    How do we know that The Escapist vetted its sources?

    You say that stuff was copied from glassdoor, other people say it was likely posted after the interviews and while it was still fresh in the source's mind. Who knows? The latter sounds more realistic to me as the former sounds a very risky proposition to perch your reputation on, but that's purely my opinion. Atleast I acknowledge it's my opinion, you're trying to pass off your opinion, your viewpoint on this as though it's undeniable fact.
    That's where we differ.


    I don't claim anything. There are a total of 27 reviews on Glassdoor.com for CIG. 9 of those came AFTER the article was published. Of those 9, only 2 were negative (1/5 stars). Of those only 1 is a verified employee (who still works there too, btw), 1 is from an anonymous person. So I'm not trying to "pass off" anything as factual, it's fact. You can go verify that yourself. I can't say whether they had other valid sources or not, I'm saying that based on what's readily available, it's fact that they didn't vet at least the one source that was a copy/pasta job from GlassDoor.com. I mean if you're unwilling to see that, then that's fine by me, but it simply goes to illustrate the point I made earlier about being in a constant state of right and wrong. Look at your own post, you're treating me like I'm a fucking idiot because I don't believe that they actually vetted their sources, like somehow your information is superior. So pot, meet kettle. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    edited September 2016
    CrazKanuk said:
    I don't claim anything. There are a total of 27 reviews on Glassdoor.com for CIG. 9 of those came AFTER the article was published. Of those 9, only 2 were negative (1/5 stars). Of those only 1 is a verified employee (who still works there too, btw), 1 is from an anonymous person. So I'm not trying to "pass off" anything as factual, it's fact. You can go verify that yourself. I can't say whether they had other valid sources or not, I'm saying that based on what's readily available, it's fact that they didn't vet at least the one source that was a copy/pasta job from GlassDoor.com. I mean if you're unwilling to see that, then that's fine by me, but it simply goes to illustrate the point I made earlier about being in a constant state of right and wrong. Look at your own post, you're treating me like I'm a fucking idiot because I don't believe that they actually vetted their sources, like somehow your information is superior. So pot, meet kettle. 

    Sure you did :) It's all in the language

    "As far as The Escapist and their vetting process goes, the one thing we do know is that they claim to vet their sources. It could be that they copy/pasted that straight out of a journalism textbook. We're talking about an article where there is text copied directly from glassdoor.com. I mean that in and of itself proves that source wasn't vetted. So of course we should expect that they would publish some sort of spiel about their vetting process, but we also need to accept that at least one source was absolutely, undeniably not vetted, which calls their entire vetting process into question. However, as you mention, we know that's not enough for some people either. So, again, we're back into the quantum machine."

    --
    Your viewpoint and my viewpoint are clearly different. Playing "What if" and having guessing games and all that malarkey has no appeal to me at all.

    Look, you're getting angry already, simply because I don't agree with you and you don't like me highlighting where you're wrong, might be wrong or whatever, while at the same time you want to make out that I am the one not willing to bend, ignoring that it's both of us that don't want to bend.

    I'm not wasting any more time getting into arguments about this.

    I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm not trying to treat you like an idiot. I disagree with things that you see as proof (or possibly proof). To my viewpoint those things look conspiratorial, I'm not mocking I'm just saying that if we talk about "what ifs" then everything is up for grabs because it all comes down to perception and bias.

    If you think I'm trying to act more superior or any of that sort of crap you are wrong.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,388
    I don't know why you guys are getting sidetracked with this anonymous source BS lol.

    The interesting bits to me that go a long way towards explaining what we've been witnessing for a year is that CIG made it personal against DS and similarly botched how they handled Kevin. In other words, CIG itself manufactured the war of words they could easily have defused with some professional PR.



    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • BalmongBalmong Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Iselin said:
    I don't know why you guys are getting sidetracked with this anonymous source BS lol.

    The interesting bits to me that go a long way towards explaining what we've been witnessing for a year is that CIG made it personal against DS and similarly botched how they handled Kevin. In other words, CIG itself manufactured the war of words they could easily have defused with some professional PR.



    That rabbit hole goes much deeper than the article indicates.I wandered over to the subreddit on him a while back. The events surrounding his unhealthy obsession for the game and those involved made for some interesting reading.
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,411
    edited September 2016
    laserit said:

    [mod edit]

    Escapist is not an anonymous source.

    If Escapist tells us they have verified their sources, then it's up to our evaluation of how reliable Escapist is.
    Post edited by Vaross on
     
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,388
    Balmong said:
    Iselin said:
    I don't know why you guys are getting sidetracked with this anonymous source BS lol.

    The interesting bits to me that go a long way towards explaining what we've been witnessing for a year is that CIG made it personal against DS and similarly botched how they handled Kevin. In other words, CIG itself manufactured the war of words they could easily have defused with some professional PR.



    That rabbit hole goes much deeper than the article indicates.I wandered over to the subreddit on him a while back. The events surrounding his unhealthy obsession for the game and those involved made for some interesting reading.
    Yeah well regardless of how far back you want to dig, CIG's decision to unilaterally refund his $250 and then name and shame him on their forums in response to his critical blog just added fuel to the fire. Ignoring him would have been the correct move.

    That's just basic internet 101.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    CrazKanuk said:
    I don't claim anything. There are a total of 27 reviews on Glassdoor.com for CIG. 9 of those came AFTER the article was published. Of those 9, only 2 were negative (1/5 stars). Of those only 1 is a verified employee (who still works there too, btw), 1 is from an anonymous person. So I'm not trying to "pass off" anything as factual, it's fact. You can go verify that yourself. I can't say whether they had other valid sources or not, I'm saying that based on what's readily available, it's fact that they didn't vet at least the one source that was a copy/pasta job from GlassDoor.com. I mean if you're unwilling to see that, then that's fine by me, but it simply goes to illustrate the point I made earlier about being in a constant state of right and wrong. Look at your own post, you're treating me like I'm a fucking idiot because I don't believe that they actually vetted their sources, like somehow your information is superior. So pot, meet kettle. 

    Sure you did :) It's all in the language

    "As far as The Escapist and their vetting process goes, the one thing we do know is that they claim to vet their sources. It could be that they copy/pasted that straight out of a journalism textbook. We're talking about an article where there is text copied directly from glassdoor.com. I mean that in and of itself proves that source wasn't vetted. So of course we should expect that they would publish some sort of spiel about their vetting process, but we also need to accept that at least one source was absolutely, undeniably not vetted, which calls their entire vetting process into question. However, as you mention, we know that's not enough for some people either. So, again, we're back into the quantum machine."

    --
    Your viewpoint and my viewpoint are clearly different. Playing "What if" and having guessing games and all that malarkey has no appeal to me at all.

    Look, you're getting angry already, simply because I don't agree with you and you don't like me highlighting where you're wrong, might be wrong or whatever, while at the same time you want to make out that I am the one not willing to bend, ignoring that it's both of us that don't want to bend.

    I'm not wasting any more time getting into arguments about this.

    I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm not trying to treat you like an idiot. I disagree with things that you see as proof (or possibly proof). To my viewpoint those things look conspiratorial, I'm not mocking I'm just saying that if we talk about "what ifs" then everything is up for grabs because it all comes down to perception and bias.

    If you think I'm trying to act more superior or any of that sort of crap you are wrong.


    I really don't think it's a "what if" conversation. I think that it's been proven on more than one occasion that these were copied from GlassDoor. If you're willing to believe that these were somehow posted on GlassDoor immediately following these interviews then ask why such a fantastical story would be any less conspiratorial. Not only that, but if you're telling me that believing that a number of people with similar views who JUST gave interviews with the SAME author for the SAME article are going to converge on the SAME website to publish their accounts from the company which were then recounted verbatim, is somehow less insane than believing that someone could just copy shit off a random website, I guess we're on a different plane and I'm just not able to get to where you are. 

    Don't worry, I don't expect you to respond, I just felt it necessary to point that bit out since it's obviously not in the same league as the conspiracy theories you mention. I'm actually surprised that people believe that sources are vetted at all. Shit, we've got a bunch of journalists here on this site who I'm sure will validate that in the VAST majority of cases, sources are not vetted. There's another mountain of information on the web that would verify that as well. So why is it so unbelievable that an editor didn't vet these sources? 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • BalmongBalmong Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Iselin said:
    Balmong said:
    Iselin said:
    I don't know why you guys are getting sidetracked with this anonymous source BS lol.

    The interesting bits to me that go a long way towards explaining what we've been witnessing for a year is that CIG made it personal against DS and similarly botched how they handled Kevin. In other words, CIG itself manufactured the war of words they could easily have defused with some professional PR.



    That rabbit hole goes much deeper than the article indicates.I wandered over to the subreddit on him a while back. The events surrounding his unhealthy obsession for the game and those involved made for some interesting reading.
    Yeah well regardless of how far back you want to dig, CIG's decision to unilaterally refund his $250 and then name and shame him on their forums in response to his critical blog just added fuel to the fire. Ignoring him would have been the correct move.

    That's just basic internet 101.
    He was bashing their game on their official forums, while simultaneously advertising for his game. And when they attempted to refund him, he provided a false address and cried foul that he never received a check. They had to send the second check to his lawyer to be sure it made it to him. Later, they found out his account had zero playtime in the game and yet was commenting on it's current state at a time when it wasn't nearly as mainstream.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,388
    edited September 2016
    Balmong said:
    Iselin said:
    Balmong said:
    Iselin said:
    I don't know why you guys are getting sidetracked with this anonymous source BS lol.

    The interesting bits to me that go a long way towards explaining what we've been witnessing for a year is that CIG made it personal against DS and similarly botched how they handled Kevin. In other words, CIG itself manufactured the war of words they could easily have defused with some professional PR.



    That rabbit hole goes much deeper than the article indicates.I wandered over to the subreddit on him a while back. The events surrounding his unhealthy obsession for the game and those involved made for some interesting reading.
    Yeah well regardless of how far back you want to dig, CIG's decision to unilaterally refund his $250 and then name and shame him on their forums in response to his critical blog just added fuel to the fire. Ignoring him would have been the correct move.

    That's just basic internet 101.
    He was bashing their game on their official forums, while simultaneously advertising for his game. And when they attempted to refund him, he provided a false address and cried foul that he never received a check. They had to send the second check to his lawyer to be sure it made it to him. Later, they found out his account had zero playtime in the game and yet was commenting on it's current state at a time when it wasn't nearly as mainstream.
    That's still totally irrelevant and just part of the gospel according to CIG.

    Here are the facts:
    1. DS wrote a critical blog
    2. CIG decided that refunding his $250 - which he hadn't asked for - would somehow undermine his ability to criticize as a backer... as if the "as a backer" part would make any difference to someone like DS lol
    3. CIG additionally made a post in their forums naming DS and why they decided to refund his $250

    Even if you want to think of DS as a rabid dog, or especially if you think he's a rabid dog - you just don't poke rabid dogs with a stick.
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    edited September 2016
    Vrika said:
    laserit said:

    [mod edit]

    Escapist is not an anonymous source.

    If Escapist tells us they have verified their sources, then it's up to our evaluation of how reliable Escapist is.
    Isn't then it's up to our evaluation"  and "Take everything you see, hear and read, especially if it involves anonymous sources with a grain of salt"  the same thing.

    FYI the 10,000 grains of salt was a dig towards my linked linked story.
    Post edited by Vaross on

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    CrazKanuk said:
    So why is it so unbelievable that an editor didn't vet these sources?

    My reasoning for why I think this unlikely is that if they were taken to court they might be compelled to expose their sources. If it turned out to be some elaborate plan hatched by Smart, Finnegan et al then they would be liable for slander, their reputation would be ruined, for all we know they could end up like the now defunct Gawker Media.

    Would they really be willing to risk all that for some page views? Personally I don't think so.

  • TalonsinTalonsin Member EpicPosts: 3,619
    Balmong said:
    He was bashing their game on their official forums, while simultaneously advertising for his game. And when they attempted to refund him,
    To be fair, other people bashed the game and were not given a refund but were simply banned from the forums, why was he given a refund he did not ask for?

    I'm the first person to admit that Derek is a whack-a-do but one must also see how from the very start he was singled out and treated differently.  While he did say a lot of stuff against the game and staff, some of it was true like Sandi lying about her degrees.  Both sides handled that situation poorly.
    "Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game."  - SEANMCAD

  • BurntvetBurntvet Member RarePosts: 3,465
    All other issues aside, the planned release of a "minimum viable product" is what amounts to a crisis in itself: people did not "donate" (which is mostly BS anyway) ~$120 mil to get an MVP.

    That is fine for say, point of sale cash register software, but not for a "AAA" (funded at least) game that has been in development for what? 5 years already? And forget about all the features that CR promised at one time or another, that has already been proved to "not going to happen."

    In the end, SC will likely release in a bad state, sq 42 the same, and at this point, with all/most of the money spent, there is little to do about it.

    That is the real crisis.

  • BalmongBalmong Member UncommonPosts: 170
    Iselin said:
    Balmong said:
    Iselin said:
    Balmong said:
    Iselin said:
    I don't know why you guys are getting sidetracked with this anonymous source BS lol.

    The interesting bits to me that go a long way towards explaining what we've been witnessing for a year is that CIG made it personal against DS and similarly botched how they handled Kevin. In other words, CIG itself manufactured the war of words they could easily have defused with some professional PR.



    That rabbit hole goes much deeper than the article indicates.I wandered over to the subreddit on him a while back. The events surrounding his unhealthy obsession for the game and those involved made for some interesting reading.
    Yeah well regardless of how far back you want to dig, CIG's decision to unilaterally refund his $250 and then name and shame him on their forums in response to his critical blog just added fuel to the fire. Ignoring him would have been the correct move.

    That's just basic internet 101.
    He was bashing their game on their official forums, while simultaneously advertising for his game. And when they attempted to refund him, he provided a false address and cried foul that he never received a check. They had to send the second check to his lawyer to be sure it made it to him. Later, they found out his account had zero playtime in the game and yet was commenting on it's current state at a time when it wasn't nearly as mainstream.
    That's still totally irrelevant and just part of the gospel according to CIG.

    Here are the facts:
    1. DS wrote a critical blog
    2. CIG decided that refunding his $250 - which he hadn't asked for - would somehow undermine his ability to criticize as a backer... as if the "as a backer" part would make any difference to someone like DS lol
    3. CIG additionally made a post in their forums naming DS and why they decided to refund his $250

    Even if you want to think of DS as a rabid dog, or especially if you think he's a rabid dog - you just don't poke rabid dogs with a stick.
    1) Yes he wrote a private blog, but he was rabble rousing on the forums and insinuating that he and a large part of the the backers (turned out to be a couple dozen tops) were claiming fraud and wanted an audit of the funds (a request he was making to a direct competitor).

    2) CIG is a private company that has the right to refuse service to anyone

    3) By this point DS had released another blog and the whole affair had become high drama for anyone keeping an eye on the project, so CR explained his actions like a transparent company would try to do

    Everyone likes to point out CR's history, well DS's is full of nothing but failures and temper tantrums on Usenet. The one's poking this old rabid dog are the people he surrounds himself with.
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    Talonsin said:
    Balmong said:
    He was bashing their game on their official forums, while simultaneously advertising for his game. And when they attempted to refund him,
    To be fair, other people bashed the game and were not given a refund but were simply banned from the forums, why was he given a refund he did not ask for?

    I'm the first person to admit that Derek is a whack-a-do but one must also see how from the very start he was singled out and treated differently.  While he did say a lot of stuff against the game and staff, some of it was true like Sandi lying about her degrees.  Both sides handled that situation poorly.

    That's a very good point. I don't agree with a lot of what he says, the way he says it or the apparent agenda behind it but what you wrote there makes a very good point.

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    CrazKanuk said:
    So why is it so unbelievable that an editor didn't vet these sources?

    My reasoning for why I think this unlikely is that if they were taken to court they might be compelled to expose their sources. If it turned out to be some elaborate plan hatched by Smart, Finnegan et al then they would be liable for slander, their reputation would be ruined, for all we know they could end up like the now defunct Gawker Media.

    Would they really be willing to risk all that for some page views? Personally I don't think so.

    If they were taken to court and exposed their sources they would be just as ethically bankrupt as if they bullshitted about those sources in the first place.

    You lose your credibility either way.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Member LegendaryPosts: 8,967
    If someone prints something about you that's untrue you tell them it's untrue and ask them to print a retraction or you will take them to court.  It's done all the time.  If they don't print a retraction and you don't take them to court that pretty much says it all.  Meaning the article and everything in it is left to stand as it is.  Now other sources feel they are free to reprint the information which is what is going on.

    No ones forcing them to say the information is untrue at the moment.   

    "We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa      "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are."  SR Covey

  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy Member EpicPosts: 3,497
    laserit said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    So why is it so unbelievable that an editor didn't vet these sources?

    My reasoning for why I think this unlikely is that if they were taken to court they might be compelled to expose their sources. If it turned out to be some elaborate plan hatched by Smart, Finnegan et al then they would be liable for slander, their reputation would be ruined, for all we know they could end up like the now defunct Gawker Media.

    Would they really be willing to risk all that for some page views? Personally I don't think so.

    If they were taken to court and exposed their sources they would be just as ethically bankrupt as if they bullshitted about those sources in the first place.

    You lose your credibility either way.

    I'm not sure I understand. If a judge forced them to release the identity and all information pertaining to those sources it's not really on the Escapist.

Sign In or Register to comment.