Jimquisition: The 100% Objective Review

[MrFalconfly]

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it... although the "Gamers Are Dead" articles were a reaction to the ugly side of Gaming, which has been rearing its head on a very regular basis (including the Zoe Quinn situation) for the last couple of years.

The problem really was the Anti-Feminist Brigade had shown up from outside of gaming a couple of years back and were quick to frame this in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with Journalistic Ethics and all about their on-going Culture Wars against the dreaded Social Justice Warriors. To this day, far too many articles and videos spend a significant portion of their run-time dealing with the Threat of Anita Sarkeesian (not involved in journalistic scandal), which, again, frames the debate in a way that is unpalatable to people. It becomes a war against opinions GG doesn't like, rather than a discussion about the failing of games journalism.

Total Biscuit is really the first person in GamerGate who knows how to keep shit focused on Journalistic Ethics, because he doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever slant a particular site has, so long as they're honest about it. If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Why does it always fall back to TB to sort our shit out?

He's like the Batman of videogames (I sure hope his parents still live).

Because he's the only prominent voice who doesn't come across as a War On Opinions We Don't Like.

You had more like him who weren't eager to get bogged down in irrelevancies you wouldn't need Batman to salvage your image.

My image.

Do I look like a PAO for #Gamergate?

Also I will say, Being appointed PAO for #Gamergate would be a daunting task. "Here. Make some good PR for this loose collection of people whose only unifying feature is their love for games, using the very journalists who seems to hate said people's guts".

Mate, I'd rather face a firing squad than that.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I think the issue of objective review is a misconception. Gamers simply don't want fanboys to shout at them why they should or shouldn't buy the game because fanboys tend to like and dislike certain games based on entirely subjective little things that other people might disagree about completely. Or they compare the game that they dislike to one that they like and base their review off of that. Which is also wrong. That kind of stuff.

 

[Something Amyss]

Now don't go steamrolling me just yet.

Any serious discussion you wanted to have went out the window with that line right there.

I just went so far as to say that Gamergate was not a unified front, and your first reaction was to assume the exact opposite.

I don't think Zoe Quinn is the primary example of lacking ethics, or journalistic integrity (and the most times I've seen her brought up in a discussion about #Gamergate, is because someone else said that #Gamergate was because of her. I haven't actually seen #Gamergate themselves use her as an argument).

That would not be true. Not The Bees posted like a dozen examples to the contrary from one thread within only a handful of pages. She keeps getting brought up by GGers without prompting, as do the other "literally whos."

Or Destructoid writers Darren Nakamura and Chris Carter reviewing ex-staffer Anthony Burch's game Borderlands 2 without disclosing their friendship.

You mean the one that had been made public, that people were aware of, and that Gamergate didn't give a crap about until Birch made them look like hypocrites by pointing it out himself? His self-disclosed ties that nobody cared about or even looked into until said self-disclosure?

The main thing here, is that the reviewers have a pre-existing relationship with the developers of the product that's being reviewed. At the best of times this shouldn't happen at all. And if it does happen it should be disclosed (I mean for Pete's sake. Jim Sterling gave full disclosure when the Escapist reviewed a game he did voice-acting in. Why didn't Polygon or DToid?).

Which person voice acted in which game?

Also, the 8-10 simultaneous "Gamers are dead" articles didn't really calm the waters either (more like poured high-octane petrol on it and proceeded to scatter the place with Molotov cocktails).

Because people can't read. Again, I'm sorry, but this reaction has been infantile. People complaining that Leigh and the other guy said things they didn't when they defined their terms, couched their phrases, and spoke specifically. And this was my point in the first place. All this histrionic bull that Leigh was calling gamers angry white boys or saying that gaming was completely dead are completely false, but a bunch of people say "angry white males" or whatever, and decided to get angry without care for context, consequence, or reality.

This is the crap that needs to stop. This is why we can't have nice things. Because the minute someone says something we don't like, we throw a tantrum and blow it out of proportion.

I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but I hope we can go from this discussion in a friendly spirit, rather than give fuel to anyone who'd want to portray gamers (or users of games-media) as immature.

No. We cannot. I do not like dishonesty and I especially do not like people being dishonest about what I write. If you want to put shit in my mouth, you do not get to hope for a friendly spirit. I don't like lies, liars, or anything resembling them. You not only misrepresented me, but you spewed several paragraphs of falsehoods and half-truths.

This post is endemic of the very problems I have with Gamergate. Well, most of them.

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it...

Then they're wrong. They'd still be supporting Gamergate lies.

If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

I call bullshit. When I looked him up on the matter, he was "leading the charge" in no small part by linking to sites which contain the exact same crap everyone else is spewing. Even as he says he's for ethics and inclusivity, he's linking to sites that rehash debunked garbage.

I'm not sure that's ethical, and it's certainly not inclusive.

 

[MrFalconfly]

snip

OK. You've made your point, I made mine. It's sad that we couldn't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day.

EDIT:

BTW I found the review.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/reviews/10968-Jazzpunk-Review-Spy-Humor

Jazzpunk. And Jim Sterling voiced one of the characters. And that bit of information was disclosed in the review done by the Escapist.

 

[Something Amyss]

OK. You've made your point, I made mine. It's sad that we couldn't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day.

The fault was mine. As I've recently been reminded, arguing with conspiracy theorists only serves to raise one's blood pressure. I should have simply bowed out when you misrepresented me.

But since you did add that edit, allow me to point out I was asking not for Jim's voice acting (which I already knew), but for those other voice actors, since you made a parallel to Jim's situation. Jim doesn't disclose all his personal relationships in the business, at least no more than Birch did, so I'm assuming you meant others failed to disclose their voice acting credits, the fair and honest parallel.

Was I mistaken? Did you seek to use Jim to hold others to unfair, uneven standards? Ones to which Jim himself doesn't actually hold himself? Because Jim ay have disclosed when he actually had a stake in the game, but does not disclose personal relationships (the thing you were contrasting it to) unless you count simply not hiding it (in which case, Jim does it but so do most or all of the people you're indicating acted inappropriately).

 

[DaViller]

The review in question is clearly biased, he called final fantasy 13 a videogame even but he gave no explanation as to wich factors constitute a videogame. Clearly jim sterling is a shill of square enix for reviewing theyr piece of software, even though it´s status as a videogame wasn´t proven.

 

[MrFalconfly]

OK. You've made your point, I made mine. It's sad that we couldn't come to an agreement.

Have a nice day.

The fault was mine. As I've recently been reminded, arguing with conspiracy theorists only serves to raise one's blood pressure. I should have simply bowed out when you misrepresented me.

But since you did add that edit, allow me to point out I was asking not for Jim's voice acting (which I already knew), but for those other voice actors, since you made a parallel to Jim's situation. Jim doesn't disclose all his personal relationships in the business, at least no more than Birch did, so I'm assuming you meant others failed to disclose their voice acting credits, the fair and honest parallel.

Was I mistaken? Did you seek to use Jim to hold others to unfair, uneven standards? Ones to which Jim himself doesn't actually hold himself? Because Jim ay have disclosed when he actually had a stake in the game, but does not disclose personal relationships (the thing you were contrasting it to) unless you count simply not hiding it (in which case, Jim does it but so do most or all of the people you're indicating acted inappropriately).

Those weren't voice actors.

They were simply examples of reviewers who had a relationship with the developer of the game that was being reviewed. Personally I'm of the opinion that if a reviewer finds him/herself in a position where his/her professional detachment could possibly be compromised he/she should let someone else handle the review (or at least disclose that there is a relationship between the reviewer and the developer).

But that is just my opinion.

 

[Something Amyss]

They were simply examples of reviewers who had a relationship with the developer of the game that was being reviewed.

Jim Sterling doesn't do this, either, so why did you offer him up as an example?

 

[Something Amyss]

The review in question is clearly biased, he called final fantasy 13 a videogame even but he gave no explanation as to wich factors constitute a videogame. Clearly jim sterling is a shill of square enix for reviewing theyr piece of software, even though it´s status as a videogame wasn´t proven.

Yes, I wish to know his criteria for calling it a video game. Perhaps it's just one of those casual games I hear about all the time.

 

[MrFalconfly]

They were simply examples of reviewers who had a relationship with the developer of the game that was being reviewed.

Jim Sterling doesn't do this, either, so why did you offer him up as an example?

Because the Escapist Magazine was an example of a fully disclosed relationship between the reviewer, and someone involved with the development (in this case, Jim Sterling being both a voice actor in Jazzpunk, and the boss/editor of the reviewer, Jonathan Bolding, who reviewed Jazzpunk)

 

[Something Amyss]

Because the Escapist Magazine was an example of a fully disclosed relationship between the reviewer, and someone involved with the development (in this case, Jim Sterling being both a voice actor in Jazzpunk, and the boss/editor of the reviewer, Jonathan Bolding, who reviewed Jazzpunk)

Except that's only a professional relationship. Jim has not disclosed other relationships in reviews, so it's more likely that this is only disclosed because of a specific financial and professional stake.

How does that apply to other people you have mentioned, whose relationships are personal and of the sort Jim has not disclosed within his reviews?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Because the Escapist Magazine was an example of a fully disclosed relationship between the reviewer, and someone involved with the development (in this case, Jim Sterling being both a voice actor in Jazzpunk, and the boss/editor of the reviewer, Jonathan Bolding, who reviewed Jazzpunk)

Except that's only a professional relationship. Jim has not disclosed other relationships in reviews, so it's more likely that this is only disclosed because of a specific financial and professional stake.

How does that apply to other people you have mentioned, whose relationships are personal and of the sort Jim has not disclosed within his reviews?

Doesn't matter.

I'm not gonna trust a friend of a games developer to give me a clear review when he can't even admit that they're friends.

 

[Netrigan]

If these were the only issues, I think you'd find most folks would support it... although the "Gamers Are Dead" articles were a reaction to the ugly side of Gaming, which has been rearing its head on a very regular basis (including the Zoe Quinn situation) for the last couple of years.

The problem really was the Anti-Feminist Brigade had shown up from outside of gaming a couple of years back and were quick to frame this in a way that had absolutely nothing to do with Journalistic Ethics and all about their on-going Culture Wars against the dreaded Social Justice Warriors. To this day, far too many articles and videos spend a significant portion of their run-time dealing with the Threat of Anita Sarkeesian (not involved in journalistic scandal), which, again, frames the debate in a way that is unpalatable to people. It becomes a war against opinions GG doesn't like, rather than a discussion about the failing of games journalism.

Total Biscuit is really the first person in GamerGate who knows how to keep shit focused on Journalistic Ethics, because he doesn't give a rat's ass about whatever slant a particular site has, so long as they're honest about it. If you had TB out there leading the charge from Day One, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Why does it always fall back to TB to sort our shit out?

He's like the Batman of videogames (I sure hope his parents still live).

Because he's the only prominent voice who doesn't come across as a War On Opinions We Don't Like.

You had more like him who weren't eager to get bogged down in irrelevancies you wouldn't need Batman to salvage your image.

My image.

Do I look like a PAO for #Gamergate?

Also I will say, Being appointed PAO for #Gamergate would be a daunting task. "Here. Make some good PR for this loose collection of people whose only unifying feature is their love for games, using the very journalists who seems to hate said people's guts".

Mate, I'd rather face a firing squad than that.

Well then, I guess I misread the part where you said "sort our shit out."

GG got engaged in an irrelevant Culture War, which frames their agenda. The mega-thread has quite a bit of discussion denying harassment and even folks who love games so much but want to boycott purchasing new games umtil after Christmas... for no reason I can determine, certainly nothing related to journalistic ethics.

I'm not okay with most of their stated objectives (first post of mega-thread) and don't approve of their tactics. TB is the prominent member that I can agree with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Doesn't matter.

I'm not gonna trust a friend of a games developer to give me a clear review when he can't even admit that they're friends.

Then why use Jim as an example? Are you going to trust him, despite his failure to admit his friendships with people within the industry? Are you aware that one of the people Burch is talking about is Jim Sterling, who was reviews editor at Destructoid when favourable reviews went up for some of Gearbox's products, but this was not disclosed in such reviews?

Do you feel it's reasonable to hold one side of a relationship to a different standard than the other side?

 

[MrFalconfly]

Doesn't matter.

I'm not gonna trust a friend of a games developer to give me a clear review when he can't even admit that they're friends.

Then why use Jim as an example? Are you going to trust him, despite his failure to admit his friendships with people within the industry? Are you aware that one of the people Burch is talking about is Jim Sterling, who was reviews editor at Destructoid when favourable reviews went up for some of Gearbox's products, but this was not disclosed in such reviews?

Do you feel it's reasonable to hold one side of a relationship to a different standard than the other side?

I trust him, because he gives me that information. If he (at least I hope. I don't want to add to the list of reviewers and review-sites that I don't trust) thinks something could compromise the journalistic integrity he discloses it (please don't betray my trust Jim).

 

[Something Amyss]

I trust him, because he gives me that information. If he (at least I hope. I don't want to add to the list of reviewers and review-sites that I don't trust) thinks something could compromise the journalistic integrity he discloses it (please don't betray my trust Jim).

How is not disclosing his friendship with Burch any different than Burch not disclosing his friendship with Jim?

 

[JackyG]

This review of Final Fantasy XIII is biased because you made the video black and white to suggest this is a game that came out a few years ago which is ABSURD!

 

[MrFalconfly]

I trust him, because he gives me that information. If he (at least I hope. I don't want to add to the list of reviewers and review-sites that I don't trust) thinks something could compromise the journalistic integrity he discloses it (please don't betray my trust Jim).

How is not disclosing his friendship with Burch any different than Burch not disclosing his friendship with Jim?

The difference is that I don't care if a game-dev say he is a friend of some random reviewer who might not even review the game. I do however car if the reviewer who has analysed a game have a relationship with any of the people who worked on it because that might colour the review.

 

[Something Amyss]

The difference is that I don't care if a game-dev say he is a friend of some random reviewer who might not even review the game. I do however car if the reviewer who has analysed a game have a relationship with any of the people who worked on it because that might colour the review.

You mean like when a reviews editor is close to a person whose product gets a favourable review?

 

[Something Amyss]

This review of Final Fantasy XIII is biased because you made the video black and white to suggest this is a game that came out a few years ago which is ABSURD!

Well, colour could prejudice certain people and it might be seen as bias against people with some form of colour blindness.