Star Crisis?

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

The title is from the article, it is not my title. I am only posting this because it's an indepth look into various aspects of the project.
Take from it what you will.

Apparently the author has contacted at least three people (two of them ex employees) who have confirmed some of the allegations made by The Escapist back in 2015.

Article - https://imgur.com/a/WpXMe#KmIeXEA

Balmong · September 2016

That Level article has been around the bloc a few times now.

I always have a problem with articles that say "We have evidence but can't show you for 'reasons'". You either have evidence or you don't, and until you present it, everything is baseless accusations. Same goes for the "anonymous tipsters". If it's as big as a sham as they are saying, why hide behind anonymity? If there is embezzlement on this scale, the FBI would love to sink their teeth into it.

It only got better when they were challenged on those ID badges the ex-employees presented as "proof" of employment.

Around the same time as these articles came out, Tech Raptor wrote an interesting article in regards to using anonymous sources: http://techraptor.net/content/escapist-opportunity-discuss-anonymous-sources

SEANMCAD · September 2016

sounds like the OP kinda failed on this one

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

Balmong said:
It only got better when they were challenged on those ID badges the ex-employees presented as "proof" of employment.

Around the same time as these articles came out, Tech Raptor wrote an interesting article in regards to using anonymous sources: http://techraptor.net/content/escapist-opportunity-discuss-anonymous-sources

There was only one person that used an ID badge, that person couldn't be verified so they didn't use their info anyhow.
From the vetting article

This was the caller who did not give his name, but verified employment with ID and pay stubs

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

That techraptor article is about anonymous sources which is a million miles from anonymized sources (aka de-identification).

Balmong · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

Balmong said:
It only got better when they were challenged on those ID badges the ex-employees presented as "proof" of employment.

Around the same time as these articles came out, Tech Raptor wrote an interesting article in regards to using anonymous sources: http://techraptor.net/content/escapist-opportunity-discuss-anonymous-sources

There was only one person that used an ID badge, that person couldn't be verified so they didn't use their info anyhow.
From the vetting article
This was the caller who did not give his name, but verified employment with ID and pay stubs
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/14727-The-Escapist-Explains-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo

That techraptor article is about anonymous sources which is a million miles from anonymized sources (aka de-identification).

Anonymized sources are used for aggregate data, usually in the medical field for research purposes. It is used to protect peoples identity when you publish the study, it is not the same as when you are approached by anonymous sources for a new article. One is a faceless set of info on paper for a peer review, the other is someone with a blacked out face and altered voice on 60 Minutes.

MaxBacon · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

I am only posting this because it's an indepth look into various aspects of the project.

Huh? This is the same thing as the Escapist Article last year, same narrative, same supposed verified and legit sources left unproven... I mean last week was the Gamerranx article that also went back last year through all this events from The Escapist articles and so on, I wonder what will be next week.

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

You can use anonymized sources wherever you like providing verification and due diligence are also used.
There are lots of reasons why people wouldn't want to be personally associated with information that might be made public.

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

MaxBacon said:

rpmcmurphy said:

I am only posting this because it's an indepth look into various aspects of the project.

Huh? This is the same thing as the Escapist Article last year, same narrative, same supposed verified and legit sources left unproven... I mean last week was the Gamerranx article that also went back last year through all this events from The Escapist articles and so on, I wonder what will be next week.

And as I said it is entirely up other people if they want to read it. I'm not trying to push it on anybody.
I hadn't seen this before (the print is dated July '16) and from the small bit that I read thought it was well written, I have no idea how much is well written or researched.

Balmong · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

You can use anonymized sources wherever you like providing verification and due diligence are also used.
There are lots of reasons why people wouldn't want to be personally associated with information that might be made public.

"Anonymization refers to irreversibly severing a data set from the identity of the data contributor in a study to prevent any future re-identification, even by the study organizers under any condition. De-identification is also a severing of a data set from the identity of the data contributor, but may include preserving identifying information which could only be re-linked by a trusted party in certain situations. There is a debate in the technology community of whether data that can be re-linked, even by a trusted party, should ever be considered de-identified."

Not the same as using an Anonymous source for a news article, the very act of using an Anonymous source requires you (ethically) to have your senior editor as well as lawyers privy to the same info to cover your butt.

Iselin · September 2016

Thanks for posting that... good read.

Erillion · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

The Smarty has beaten the drums for that article far and wide about 6 weeks ago and i think the Goons translated it from Swedish into English weeks ago.

Its a better written version of the Escapist piece, with no new information and the DreDre approval stamp.

Have fun

Talonsin · September 2016

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

Its a better written version of the Escapist piece, with no new information and the DreDre approval stamp.

Who is DreDre?

Kefo · September 2016

Talonsin said:

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

Its a better written version of the Escapist piece, with no new information and the DreDre approval stamp.

Who is DreDre?

I think the bunny is trying to be cute and not saying DS. That or he really is terrified of his name and can't mention it like lord Voldemort in Harry Potter

Balmong · September 2016

Kefo said:

Talonsin said:

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

Its a better written version of the Escapist piece, with no new information and the DreDre approval stamp.

Who is DreDre?

I think the bunny is trying to be cute and not saying DS. That or he really is terrified of his name and can't mention it like lord Voldemort in Harry Potter

There is that rumor about saying his name 3 times in a forum....

laserit · September 2016

Balmong said:

Kefo said:

Talonsin said:

Erillion said:

rpmcmurphy said:

Not at all. I'd never seen the article before and posted it purely so that others could read it if they were so inclined.

Its a better written version of the Escapist piece, with no new information and the DreDre approval stamp.

Who is DreDre?

I think the bunny is trying to be cute and not saying DS. That or he really is terrified of his name and can't mention it like lord Voldemort in Harry Potter

There is that rumor about saying his name 3 times in a forum....

Derek Smart

Derek Smart

Derek Smart

donger56 · September 2016

I think it's pretty obvious that this game won't deliver. A lot of this sideshow stuff with various individuals is just a distraction really. The game has been in development since 2011 and is currently nothing but a tech demo at best. It doesn't matter how much money is spent or how much more time they waste. This is just another example of a project that used all the wrong tools and made a bunch of promises they can't keep. At this point all they can do is ride it out and eventually throw out the best they can come up with. It will be a jumbled mess, but you can bet Roberts is already planning on how to cash out and fade away just like he always does. At some point even the hardcore fanboys will have to face reality. Star Citizen was a great idea but unfortunately that's all it's ever going to be.

goboygo · September 2016

Imagine that, a few employees not happy with their employer, I see that all the time at work, we call them cancerous. So we fire them. Every company has tumors like this that need to be removed.

Their usually not very happy about it, and tend to have bad things to say about their host.

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

Balmong said:

"Anonymization refers to irreversibly severing a data set from the identity of the data contributor in a study to prevent any future re-identification, even by the study organizers under any condition. De-identification is also a severing of a data set from the identity of the data contributor, but may include preserving identifying information which could only be re-linked by a trusted party in certain situations. There is a debate in the technology community of whether data that can be re-linked, even by a trusted party, should ever be considered de-identified."

Not the same as using an Anonymous source for a news article, the very act of using an Anonymous source requires you (ethically) to have your senior editor as well as lawyers privy to the same info to cover your butt.

Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.

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.

craftseeker · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

Balmong said:

"Anonymization refers to irreversibly severing a data set from the identity of the data contributor in a study to prevent any future re-identification, even by the study organizers under any condition. De-identification is also a severing of a data set from the identity of the data contributor, but may include preserving identifying information which could only be re-linked by a trusted party in certain situations. There is a debate in the technology community of whether data that can be re-linked, even by a trusted party, should ever be considered de-identified."

Not the same as using an Anonymous source for a news article, the very act of using an Anonymous source requires you (ethically) to have your senior editor as well as lawyers privy to the same info to cover your butt.

Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.

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.

You are being ridiculous and making up your terms as you go along. anonymized sources are not a thing except in your own mind.

laserit · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

Balmong said:

"Anonymization refers to irreversibly severing a data set from the identity of the data contributor in a study to prevent any future re-identification, even by the study organizers under any condition. De-identification is also a severing of a data set from the identity of the data contributor, but may include preserving identifying information which could only be re-linked by a trusted party in certain situations. There is a debate in the technology community of whether data that can be re-linked, even by a trusted party, should ever be considered de-identified."

Not the same as using an Anonymous source for a news article, the very act of using an Anonymous source requires you (ethically) to have your senior editor as well as lawyers privy to the same info to cover your butt.

Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.

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.

anonymize:

to remove identifying information from (something, such as computer data) so that the original source cannot be known : to make (something) anonymous

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anonymize

Here some more interesting reading for you

http://www.spj.org/ethics-papers-anonymity.asp

CrazKanuk · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

Balmong said:

"Anonymization refers to irreversibly severing a data set from the identity of the data contributor in a study to prevent any future re-identification, even by the study organizers under any condition. De-identification is also a severing of a data set from the identity of the data contributor, but may include preserving identifying information which could only be re-linked by a trusted party in certain situations. There is a debate in the technology community of whether data that can be re-linked, even by a trusted party, should ever be considered de-identified."

Not the same as using an Anonymous source for a news article, the very act of using an Anonymous source requires you (ethically) to have your senior editor as well as lawyers privy to the same info to cover your butt.

Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.

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.

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.

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

craftseeker said:

You are being ridiculous and making up your terms as you go along. anonymized sources are not a thing except in your own mind.

LOL I been saying the same thing from the beginning, the polar opposite of making things up as I go, just goes to show your lack of comprehension.

Having sources that have their identity verified but protected is different from the connotation of the words 'anonymous sources'. Anybody should be able to see that.

The person(s) have confirmed their identtity to their interviewer, they have been verified by various criteria, they have confirmed their place of employment (past or present) etc.
That is the opposite of anonymous in this situation because we now know it is not just 3 or 4 people phoning in, saying the same thing without being verifiable.

Just because you guys need a wikipedia entry to define things you don't understand or are unable to see parallels between situations does not mean that we all need that kind of help.

laserit said:

anonymize:
to remove identifying information from (something, such as computer data) so that the original source cannot be known : to make (something) anonymous

You guys and your hang-ups over words, your literality really makes me laugh.

The sources are anonymized to the public, therefore they are anonymized sources. How is it even possible to not get your head around such a basic concept?

The sources are not anonymous to the person or persons that have put the article together. By claiming they are anonymous sources is to imply a negative connotation as to the validity of their information or to imply a lack of due diligence on the part of the author(s).

That is why we do not use the words anonymous sources in this context. Instead we use the words anonymized sources, the handlers of all the data have access to the indentity of their sources. The viewers (readers) of that data do not.

Is that explained in a basic enough manner for you people?

laserit · September 2016

rpmcmurphy said:

laserit said:

anonymize:
to remove identifying information from (something, such as computer data) so that the original source cannot be known : to make (something) anonymous

You guys and your hang-ups over words, your literality really makes me laugh.

The sources are anonymized to the public, therefore they are anonymized sources. How is it even possible to not get your head around such a basic concept?

The sources are not anonymous to the person or persons that have put the article together. By claiming they are anonymous sources is to imply a negative connotation as to the validity of their information or to imply a lack of due diligence on the part of the author(s).

That is why we do not use the words anonymous sources in this context. Instead we use the words anonymized sources, the handlers of all the data have access to the indentity of their sources. The viewers (readers) of that data do not.

Is that explained in a basic enough manner for you people?

Read what you wrote:

"Most people would think of anonymous sources as being tips where the person making the tip is not verifiable, with X number of independant tips possibly leading to actually investigating something a bit further.

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."

If you're going to talk like you're some kind of an expert and make assumptions of what us foolish plebeians believe the word anonymous to mean, at least take the time to learn the meaning of the big words you're going to use.

Now thats whats funny

anonymize = to make something anonymous

It's that simple

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

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.

rpmcmurphy · September 2016

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.

Lerxst · September 2016

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.

Howdy, Stranger!

Star Crisis?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Star Crisis?

Comments