A conversation with a gaming journalist

[Naked Ninja]

OFFS, the colour thing was just to illustrate the point of the two seperate non-overlapping groups for people bad at maths. It wasn't a proof you need to disprove to counteract the ethics thing. Yes, I am aware of the colour orange.

All right, trying again. You have two groups of people. One male, one female. The males vary in height, and so do the females, but each male isn't a female and each female isn't a male.

Does that make more sense? Please, for the love of sanity, don't go off on a tangent about hermaphradites and people who have had sex changes. Try to focus on the forest and not the trees.

I really hope you one day get a chance to try that argument in court. Something along the lines of "You can't abstract reality into whats lawful and whats not! When I stole that car I wasn't expecting the police officers to be operating under that specific mathematical abstraction! Its not fair!" The comedy of that would more than make up for the pain of listening to you armchair philosophers.

 

[MF]

I really hope you one day get a chance to try that argument in court. Something along the lines of "You can't abstract reality into whats lawful and whats not! When I stole that car I wasn't expecting the police officers to be operating under that specific mathematical abstraction! Its not fair!" The comedy of that would more than make up for the pain of listening to you armchair philosophers.

Law is something written and defined. It's something you know you should abide by. People know the law, as it is mostly absolute. While running the risk of you refuting my argument by saying a law system is sometimes arbitrary, at least the law is a clear set of rules you should abide by lest you risk prosecution or a fine. Ethics are not clearly defined, not universal -law is, at least locally- and mostly arbitrary.

What I'm trying to say is that your set of ethics may be different from VD's. If you live in the same country/state/whatever, your set of laws is the same, that's a big difference. Something you may find unethical, VD may consider completely within his range of ethical behavior. Or just barely. Either way, it's not the binary yes or no question you try to make it. What VD did isn't illegal, you know.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Oh no you don't. If you're going to spout that crap at least stick to your guns, no exceptions. Nothing worse than a psuedo-intellectual who is also a hypocrite.

Come on now mate, back at it, relative morality and why no one can expect anyone to believe anything or act in anyway whatsoever, and all that jazz.

 

[MF]

Oh no you don't. If you're going to spout that crap at least stick to your guns, no exceptions. Nothing worse than a psuedo-intellectual who is also a hypocrite.

Come on now mate, back at it, relative morality and why no one can expect anyone to believe anything or act in anyway whatsoever, and all that jazz.

To paraphrase you, I'm either an intellectual or I'm not. I can't be a pseudo-intellectual. Now who's the hypocrite?

Morality is very relative. Law is not. Bite me. If you think your moral compass is better than VD's, that's something special just for you to gloat over.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Since it is called a "private" message, if you are going to err, in this case you should err on the side of caution, ie that the sender assumes private = private (since you asked, are you sure you can do maths?).

That would have been a *polite* thing to do, I agree. Not ethical, but merely polite.

My point is that you wanted to ban me unless I proved it to *you*.

No. I simply asked you to back up your position with arguments. For example, let's take a look at the paragraph above:

"You can't assume a private message wasn't expected to remain private. This is where simply asking him before hand would have been the ethical thing to do."

Two bold statements, without the burden of supporting arguments. Why can't I assume that? Why asking him is ethical and not asking him is unethical? You pass your black-n-white, a bit naive opinion as ten commandments-like facts, and that's what I'm having a problem with.

So Gamespy doesn't review indie games because most of them are unprofessional? Oh no, what a dirty little secret! From what I've seen he is indeed correct. It might mean he never reviews my game? Well so be it, I'm not going to be an ass about it.

Well, you *are* being an ass about it, and it sure seems that the main reason why you are pissed off about is because of your game.

Oh, and it would indeed have been unprofessional if you had stated as fact that F3 was going to be neither turn based nor isometric. Because you hadn't seen it at that point. You predicted it would be so, based on knowledge you had at the time and statements made by Bethesda. Predictions aren't unethical.

Now predictions are not ethical? Even when they are accurate and give people a very clear idea of what to expect. Anyway, I did stated "as facts" that the game is neither turn-based nor isometric, and guess what? The game is neither turn-based nor isometric.

And my only motivation for posting all this has been because I just thought it was a shitty thing to do.

So, let's sum up your position based on your last reply: you agree that Patrick didn't reveal anything confidential, you agree that my actions didn't cause him any harm, you even agree that Patrick didn't mind sharing the info ("Hell, it didn't sound like Patrick wanted the core information kept secret"), and yet what I've done was unprofessional, unethical, and shitty thing to do? Anyway, your opinion is duly noted.

Yep, been working on my RPG for about 2 years now and its finally approaching something worth showing online.

Well, keep us posted then and let me know when you are ready to show it. I may be unethical and unprofessional, but I'll gladly give you coverage.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I think you misread me there VD :

Predictions aren't unethical.

Thats a double negative. Ie, I was saying predictions are ethical. They are NOT -un-ethical. Double negative.

Dude, Gamespy has nothing to do with this. Honestly. I doubt they would have reviewed my stuff anyway, and so what. Thats probably not my target audience. Smaller review sites with a more indie focus, such as RPG Watch or the Codex, definately. I was just doing it because I didn't agree with the action.

So, let's sum up your position based on your last reply: you agree that Patrick didn't reveal anything confidential, you agree that my actions didn't cause him any harm, you even agree that Patrick didn't mind sharing the info ("Hell, it didn't sound like Patrick wanted the core information kept secret"), and yet what I've done was unprofessional, unethical, and shitty thing to do? Anyway, your opinion is duly noted.

Dude, stealing the dollar a person would have given you freely if you'd asked doesn't make your action right.

Well, keep us posted then and let me know when you are ready to show it. I may be unethical and unprofessional, but I'll gladly give you coverage

Will do, and thanks. I appreciate it. Man, I consider your action in this case unethical, but it wasn't that big a deal. I just didn't like the round of applause you recieved for it. I find the laughing and encouragement for that type of thing leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

But we've all done things that cross the line at times, and I don't consider you a bad guy. I do trust that you would treat any info I share about my game in a reasonable fashion. I'll pass along some info soon.

 

[Kraszu]

Thats what Patrick said in his PM dude.

Why is it hard to imagine that professionals don't want to work with unprofessionals?

Film critic don't work whit Tom Cruse when he review his film just like journalist don't work whit developer when he review his game.

 

[elander_]

Will do, and thanks. I appreciate it. Man, I consider your action in this case unethical, but it wasn't that big a deal. I just didn't like the round of applause you recieved for it. I find the laughing and encouragement for that type of thing leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

I find the same for people who say that journalist ethics is crap and that it's perfectly normal business for a journalist to go to nightclub parties paid by the person who is going to be interviewed. People who usually mix law, ethics and administration politics without a clue about what they are talking or that think journalism is like any other business. Sometimes it's smarter when you keep your mouth shut.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I think you misread me there VD. Thats a double negative. Ie, I was saying predictions are ethical. They are NOT -un-ethical. Double negative.

My bad. It's time to start using glasses.

Will do, and thanks. I appreciate it. Man, I consider your action in this case unethical, but it wasn't that big a deal. I just didn't like the round of applause you received for it.

Then you should have attacked these people, not me.

But we've all done things that cross the line at times, and I don't consider you a bad guy. I do trust that you would treat any info I share about my game in a reasonable fashion. I'll pass along some info soon.

Well, whatever you mark as confidential will remain confidential. Anything else could be posted.

 

[denizsi]

No you twit.. shades of red etc..

I hope that wasn't addressed at me, but since you didn't quote whoever whatever you were responding to and your post followed mine, it must be. So, I'll rephrase my point .

Amasius: we agree it was rude, but NN's BEHAVIOUR is an OVERKILL.
NN: No, you don't understand. HOW DARE YOU RATE MY RELIGION, I WILL WAGE JIHAD ON YOU YOU INSOLENT SINNER - LA ILAHE ILLALLAH!!1

Your posts often make as much as sense as the made up excerpt above.

 

[Excrément]

We should have a limit for any internet forum debate.
because after 5 posts of "quote& reply game", the debate just become an ego-fight.
I won't quit in order to prove I am right and vice-versa.
people here should learn sometime relativism.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

I just didn't like the round of applause you recieved for it.

Oh please. All the really, really slow clapping you heard was for Patrick.

 

[Naked Ninja]

So we've had Jihads and Hitler in one thead now? Most impressive.

@ Denizsi : If ethics are relative, so is rudeness and all forms of behavior. You can't judge me, I was operating under a different model of reality! Stop trying to force your view of my behavior on me. I will use relative morality-ethics-every-frikken-thing theory to prove you can't hold me accountable for anything! I don't accept your standards of what defines "overkill".

Hehe, you know, this lame ass argument actually becomes vaguelly fun when you use it against the people who support it.

 

[MF]

Hehe, you know, this lame ass argument actually becomes vaguelly fun when you use it against the people who support it.

Yeah, I know, ignorance is bliss. It wasn't deniszi's argument though, it was mine.

As for your witty retort : I can be held accountable to everything I do by the people around me. But I can only be absolutely accountable for my actions if I broke the law. If I tell my best friend's wife he's cheating on her, I'm not breaking the law. I may be held accountable for my actions by my buddy, but maybe I did the ethical thing when I reported his philandering to his wife? Personally I wouldn't rat on my friend like that, but it is a moral dilemma. Dilemma's exist precisely because ethics and morality are relative.

If you deny that - you are at least dismissing it as an argument here-, you're just dumb. Or a math professor.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Actually, Deniszi has come with that kind of argument before. Why do you think he loathes me so? I had some good fun with him. Oh man, fun times. Psuedo intellectuals are amusing, if nothing else. :D

That wasn't the best example to use to illustrate your point friend. Your dilemma there is based on the fact that your ethics are at war with your feelings of loyalty and friendship. You know its the right thing to do, ethically, to tell the woman, but likewise feel like you would be betraying a friend. Few people would describe the choice to cover for your philandering friend as the "ethical choice". When a man gives his word to be faithful to a woman then breaks it? Not ethical. To perpetuate that lie, to become an accomplice to his oath-breaking? Not ethical.

In that type of case the moral dilemma is occuring because the ethical choice will result in more loss to you personally than the immoral option, making it a difficult choice. Do you do the right thing, or take "the easy path"? Lose your friends friendship, or reveal the truth to a woman who maybe you don't really like or whatever.

But I still maintain that what you are referreing to isn't the ethical code itself, only how much people choose to follow it. If you happily cover for your friend, maybe do some cheating yourself, without feeling a shred of guilt, does that make your actions ethical? Lol, no. It just makes you an unethical person.

From dictionary.com :

eth·i·cal /ˈɛθɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[eth-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, esp. the standards of a profession: It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.
3. (of drugs) sold only upon medical prescription.
[Origin: 1600–10; ethic + -al1]

—Related forms
eth·i·cal·ly, adverb
eth·i·cal·ness, eth·i·cal·i·ty, noun

—Synonyms 2. moral, upright, honest, righteous, virtuous, honorable.
—Antonyms 2. immoral.

So synonyms for "ethical" are : virtuous, righteous, honourable, upright, moral. You know what a synonym is right? In case you don't, from the same place :

"word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language"

So ethical means the same as honourable, righteous and virtuous. Doesn't say anything about any relative bullshit there, does it? The very definition in the language itself means virtuous and honourable. Think about that for a moment.

And in the definition it refers to ethics as holding to the standards of a profession, ie, professionalism. It also means "pertaining to morality".

Its the same thing guys, stop bantering semantics or relative nonsense. Ethics = morals = professionalism = being virtuous and honest and honourable. Every time you shout out "You just don't know what ethics are!" you just end up looking like more of a dumbass.

You know, I should have checked dictionary.com earlier, would have saved some time and a lot of typing.

 

[MF]

You know what a synonym is right? In case you don't, from the same place :
...Ethics = morals = professionalism = being virtuous and honest and honourable

Ok, now you're just patronizing. Of course I know what a synonym is, don't insult me. If it's all about dictionary definitions and semantics for you then I guess the point is moot. Here, read this http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=19525. It was just posted, and it gives us a frame of reference for this discussion.

Your dictionary definitions do nothing to counter my example. It is an issue of personal morals, ethics figure into it, but let's ignore them for a second. If you value honesty, you tell the wife. If you value friendship, you keep your mouth shut. Is either of these options unethical? Depends on the ethics.

Saying ethics=morals=professionalism = blaba is horse-shit. They're not synonyms. Not at all.They belong together in a thesaurus, maybe. But they're not synonyms. Besides, dictionary.com is edited by a bunch of high school kids, you know that right? Are you one of those guys who cites Wikipedia in academic reports?

Here is the definition of ethics from a real dictionary (Merriam-Webster) :
Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the> <an> -- often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. <an> <Christian> b plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional> c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge>
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated>

 

[Selenti]

*masturbates gently into Naked Ninja's ear*

Let my salty elixir wash away all your ethics worries, my friend.

 

[elander_]

You are a true enlightened person Naked Ninja, because you read dictionary.com. Saying that someone who does something un-ethical is not ethic is genial. It's like using math formulas with real life concepts and try to prove truths without really knowing anything about it, except what you can read in dcitionary.com. This is the worst kind of immoral behavior. It's the behavior of someone who is only interested in manipulating semantics to his own ends.

"So ethical means the same as honourable, righteous and virtuous. Doesn't say anything about any relative bullshit there, does it? The very definition in the language itself means virtuous and honourable. Think about that for a moment."

It doesn't say anything besides that you are at least intelligent enough to read something writen on a dictionary. It's doesn't give you any moral standing to dictate to others what ethics should be for them and when something should be regulated by a moral code or not.

Besides the professional ethics that journalists follow is accepted by the majority of independent journalists. If you come here in another thread accusing people of being childish because they defend a well establish and modern code of professional ethics then you are being an hypocrite here with this 5 year old noobe code of ethics you just made up from your ass so that you can win a discussion on the internet.

"And in the definition it refers to ethics as holding to the standards of a profession, ie, professionalism. It also means "pertaining to morality"."

Yeah you can read dictionary, next it will be wikipedia and then you will be unstopable.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

MF, I cannot believe you are having this discussion. Seriously. NN, until you realise that there is no such thing as a book of the olde rules which everyone must follow, you're far better served by going to bible class, since that's almost certainly where you get such ideas. I could go into teleological and deontological ethics, and how the rules derived from them can be (and often are) diametrically opposed, but why bother? Bible class.

 

[Gambler]

NN, while I respect your effort, I recommend you not to argue with morons, especially when they hold on to their relativism. They simply don't get it, because they don't want to. They will say that all analogies are invalid, that any proof needs to be proven itself, and when cornered they will switch the topic. They don't understand that anyone can use such "logic" to justify anything.

The good thing is that they will get all this crap back from the industry, mainstream press, and the new generation of fans. Exactly the same arguments for the opposite cause. Funny, eh?

 

[MF]

NN, while I respect your effort, I recommend you not to argue with morons, especially when they hold on to their relativism. They simply don't get it, because they don't want to. They will say that all analogies are invalid, that any proof needs to be proven itself, and when cornered they will switch the topic. They don't understand that anyone can use such "logic" to justify anything.

The good thing is that they will get all this crap back from the industry, mainstream press, and the new generation of fans. Exactly the same arguments for the opposite cause. Funny, eh?

Proofs are based on axioms you moron. NN's analogies are not invalid, they are always valid because he fails to define the model in which they would work and are therefore useless.

 

[OccupatedVoid]

I saw a Patrick the other day.

Horrible journalists. I avoid them whenever I can.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

They don't understand that anyone can use such "logic" to justify anything.

Actually, that is exactly right (and I'm not entirely certain why you would assume that we "don't understand" it, other than in an attempt to bolster a worthless argument), which is why statements like "this is sooooo unethical yous guys" are absolutely worthless without a common ethical framework. Quite obviously, few people here share NN's, and we're asking him to prove, or at the very least justify it. Unfortunately, you cannot just call anyone who doesn't think like you unethical and still be taken seriously. The world doesn't work that way.

But yeah, keep fighting the good fight, soldier. You're a real trooper. At least I know where you got your tag, now.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

In before Retardo.

 

[Amasius]

So ethical means the same as honourable, righteous and virtuous. Doesn't say anything about any relative bullshit there, does it? The very definition in the language itself means virtuous and honourable. Think about that for a moment.

And in the definition it refers to ethics as holding to the standards of a profession, ie, professionalism. It also means "pertaining to morality".

Its the same thing guys, stop bantering semantics or relative nonsense. Ethics = morals = professionalism = being virtuous and honest and honourable.

I'm just a stupid pseudo intellectual, so feel free to prove me wrong, but to equate Ethics with Morality is ignorant. They are often used synonymic in everyday life but that doesn't mean that that is adequate for a philosophic debate. Ethics has a solid philosophical foundation, while morality is often only based on tradition. To equate both with professionalism is just stupid. Lets take a look at the Definition of Morality of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.) some other group, such as a religion, or
b.) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use “morality” normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that “morality” in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism.

So morality is based either on a code of conduct or (like ethics) on a timeless rationality like Utilitarism or Kants moral philosophy. I won't discuss Utilitarism or Kant, that stuff is almost as boring to read as contemporary sociology and my english isn't good enough. (The classical utilitarian writers like Bentham are quite interesting, but somehow I doubt that you would agree with them. )

If morality is based on a code of conduct it often depends on the cultural background. Lets discuss two examples: murder and nudity. Murder is forbidden in almost all cultures at all times. In some cultures it was not prohibited (= not immoral) to kill foreigners, but that would no philosopher call ethical.

Nudity on the other hand is quite different. It would be hard to find an ethical foundation to condemn nudity but in many cultures it's immoral. Hundred years ago it certainly was perceived so in western societies and even today it's not uncontroversial. In islamic societies it's still forbidden for women to leave their house unveiled. Following your equation of moral and professionalism someone who calls nudity immoral must conculde that nudity is unprofessional. Some ladys of a certain business would disagree...

You wrote above that "ethical means the same as honourable, righteous and virtuous. Even if I would agree - you should be aware that for instance the concept of honour is very different between cultures and it changes in a culture over time. A medieval knight had a very different understandig of honour than you have today.

Conclusion: VDs posting of the PMs was maybe immoral due to our code of conduct (but it's possible that VD has a different cultural background so in the code of conduct he's grown up it was ok) but it wasn't unethical because nobody was harmed. (If you want to argue that Patricks good reputation got harmed - there was no good reputation left, all possible harm was done by himself before.)