A conversation with a gaming journalist

[elander_]

He violated a trust. Plain and simple. Its unethical. You can paint words around it all you like. Makes no difference, nor does all the codex rhetoric in the world.

Trust is for honest people not for scoundrels.

 

[Walkin' Dude]

Look - the guy's married with kids

Well, I'm relieved. I thought VD was a dirty commie but it turns out he's just a creepy pedophile.

Hmm, I don't want to mis-quote anybody (OH, NOES :shock, but I think it said "married with kids", not "married to kids". Sorry, but it seems like you've gotta stay with dirty (unprofessional, of course) commie.

Unless you have PM'd pictures you'd like to share?

That would be unprofessional. What are you, an Indie Developer?

 

[Astromarine]

As for ethics, I found this neat thing today. It's a response to a journalist/Ethicist called Randy Cohen being caught donating funds to a political org against the ethics rules of his own paper:

Nincompoops talk ethics. Men talk virtues. Stop being a nincompoop.

My highest law-school grade was in Legal Ethics. I achieved a stellar grade because I devised an infallible mechanism for solving any legal ethical dilemma. My mechanism was this: Remember that legal ethics is a system of rules:
1) designed by sociopaths;
2) for sociopaths;
3) to prevent public acknowledgment of their sociopathy;
4) while still allowing said sociopaths to fleece said public.
Once you realize that contemporary ethics is not morality but the clever simulation of morality, you’re halfway to qualifying for an ethics-consulting job.

I’m only kidding a little about the sociopathy. By definition, a sociopath is one who can only emulate the rules and mores of society, as a sociopath never internalizes any sense of right and wrong. In a country where fewer and fewer people agree about how to determine right and wrong, the bogus pseudo-answers of ethics begin to sound more and more appealing. Put another way: As we grow more sociopathic as a society, ethics makes more and more sense.

And that’s where you come in, my fine ethical friend. Your job as a public ethicist is not to teach people how best to apply the rules and obligations of a transcendent authority, as the ethicists of old once did. That would be hard. And intrusive. And divisive. And let’s face it: “transcendent authority” carries the whiff of the red state, with all the unpleasantness (NASCAR, Wal-Mart, redundant children) there attached. Neither is your job to teach philosophy. That, too, would be hard, and unsatisfying as well; when do philosophers ever agree? No, your job is to provide just enough soothing advice to scratch that fleeting itch that your affluent readership feels when confronted with moral questions that vacuous self-serving upper class prejudices can’t immediately resolve. Forget right and wrong; the role of the modern ethicist is to move puzzled smart people from a state of mild dismay to a pleasant coma of satisfied smugness in the shortest time possible. You seek to avoid not sin, but the appearance of impropriety. But a great many virtues can appear quite improper, and a great many sins can appear quite proper indeed.

Consider, for example, the “ethical” rule that precludes journalists (and quasi-journalists like yourself) from donating money to politicians and overt shill machines. You’ve correctly deduced that this rule is asinine. Suppose for a moment that you obeyed it. Would you feel any differently, write any differently, be biased against conservatives any differently if you kept your $585.00 instead of donating it? And would you suddenly evolve into a better, purer, more ethically unstoppable self if you gave that money to The Medusa Fund for Underprivileged Maoists in Malibu, instead of Kucinich for President? No, this rule does nothing to prevent bias. It rewards those sneaky enough to donate anonymously, or through a proxy, even as it penalizes those who make their political biases a matter of public record. Note that my infallible ethics problem-solving mechanism predicts this rule perfectly:

1) It’s easily implemented, so that even a sociopath can enforce it;
2) It’s easy to obey, so that even a sociopath can abide by it;
3) It gives the public the entirely false sense that journalists who abide by this rule are honorable and unbiased; and
4) It doesn’t prevent any journalist with even a lick of cleverness from secretly donating money to politicians and then copping a “fairer than thou” attitude from an unassailable position of serene non-involvement.

Modern ethics is what’s left when trust has completely evaporated between leaders and the led. Whether it’s zero-tolerance school-violence policies that get kids arrested for drawing pictures of guns, draconian anti-pedophile policies that get priests bounced on the strength of an accusation, mandatory sentencing laws that put potheads in the slammer for life, or anti-touching school policies that outlaw hugs, the theme is the same: authority doesn’t trust you, you don’t trust authority, so let’s invent some rules that make no sense but sound good while eliminating any possibility that human discretion or common sense can penetrate our ethical paradise. To badly mangle Eliot, modern ethics is a system of morality so universally applicable that no one needs to be good. Was ever a compliment more damning than “He’s an extraordinarily ethical fellow?” Don’t leave your wallet or your wife around extraordinarily ethical fellows.

A real system for determining right and wrong requires commonly held first principles and leadership with the acknowledged authority to interpret and apply those principles. That kind of agreement is in short supply these days. In modern societies where people adhering to all sorts of creeds regularly interact in order to make money, principles and dogma will tend to take a backseat to rough ‘n ready codes of conduct – and modern ethics is nothing if not rough ‘n ready. Morality is for heroes; modern ethics is for sophisters, economists, and calculators. We tolerate modern ethics, as we tolerate sophisters, but they should both know their place, and neither should command great love or respect.

So ignore the rules, Randy, and donate away. Of course, your donation will expose you as an appalling hypocrite, and you may lose your job consequently. That’s okay. Your job is stupid. Why not write a column calling men to heroic virtue instead of cocktail-party pleasantries? With your tremendous experience as a comedy writer for Rosie O’Donnell, you’re pretty well qualified for either gig.

Ethically yours,

The Obscure Conservative Legal Guy

 

[Jinxed]

Didn't we cover this topic in the Pete full of shit Hines thread? No one at RPG Codex sucks developer, publisher or journalist dick. If you're a moron, then be prepared to be called one, no one here gives a shit who you are and what your standards are.

 

[psycojester]

RPGcodex: We transcend ethics

 

[xedoc gpr]

I bet a lot of people wish the biggest problem in their life was posting private messages from game article author #39394934 on the internet.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Basic courtesy and manners are the oil which keeps the business world moving.

Actually, I thought it was golf tournaments and free lunches that kept the business world moving?

Now for the bigger question -- what the fuck are you people smoking? Has anyone even read the (now 16-page long) thread? Have you read the actual PM? This fellow came in here not as a sign of rapprochement, but to excuse his moron of a friend 'cause -- hey, I'm sure you agree -- not all niggers are bad, just the ones who steal bikes, so it's clearly hyperbole. He got called on that bullshit (he got called on a lot of that), and quickly changed the subject, doing so every fucking time he lost an argument without admitting defeat. He clamped down on technicalities like a fucking young earth creationist, and assumed (rather triumphantly) that he was the victor of every single debate he lost. He continued to whine about being misquoted, even after VD apologised for it, and ignored the actual argument; apparently, the idea that something being "one of the best" puts it in the same fucking ballpark as "the best" is a really difficult idea to grasp. Likewise, he adopted the mantra of "unprofessionalism" when it came to VD's preview, repeating time after time that he let the developer write it for him, even though the idea that it's far more professional and honest than anything Gamespy ever churned out was widely agreed upon by everyone else partaking in the bloody thread. The mantra stayed, even after the argument was ripped to shreds; once again, he clamped down on the "placeholder text" bit, even after it was explained to him (and it shouldn't have to be explained to a "gaming journalist") that the question was more than justified given the current state of game dialogue.

Meanwhile, we get bombarded with muddled philosophies about how a critical preview can cost jobs and GameSpy readers are too fucking stupid to read a review after a negative preview (so that critical previews are right out), proving that he and his site are everything that's wrong with the fucking industry. The PM is just the icing on the cake, lifting any doubts any thinking individual may have had about him and his intentions. It'd be unforgivable not to post it. You keep going on about professionalism and corporations and working environments, and hey -- you know what? No one I know would consider working with such a weasel. It takes a special kind of corporate culture to foster stupidity and willful ignorance to such an extent, something Gamespy seems to provide in spades. If Rausch wasn't proof enough, our friend Patrick gives plenty.

But hey, I'm sure you're all sad about the fact that no one decided to cup his fucking balls in awe of meeting an actual gaming journalist, so that he'd throw you a bone and "advertise" your game. If he and his kind hadn't reduced the fucking industry to what it is right now, there would be no need for indie games in the first place. Sure, believe what you want. If it makes you feel better to think that you're the "voice of reason" here, so be it. It doesn't make you right, just like Patrick's unwavering belief in his infallibility didn't make him right, either. Want my advice though? Lay off the fucking doobie.

We should put this summary at the end of that other thread.

Actually, I'll edit it into my post there on the last page.

 

[AnalogKid]

RPGcodex: We transcend ethics

RPGCodex: Nobody here sucks developer dick.

I think yours sounds a bit more ... mmm ... grandiose.

 

[Elhoim]

As for ethics, I found this neat thing today. It's a response to a journalist/Ethicist called Randy Cohen being caught donating funds to a political org against the ethics rules of his own paper:

Nincompoops talk ethics. Men talk virtues. Stop being a nincompoop.

My highest law-school grade was in Legal Ethics. I achieved a stellar grade because I devised an infallible mechanism for solving any legal ethical dilemma. My mechanism was this: Remember that legal ethics is a system of rules:
1) designed by sociopaths;
2) for sociopaths;
3) to prevent public acknowledgment of their sociopathy;
4) while still allowing said sociopaths to fleece said public.
Once you realize that contemporary ethics is not morality but the clever simulation of morality, you’re halfway to qualifying for an ethics-consulting job.

I’m only kidding a little about the sociopathy. By definition, a sociopath is one who can only emulate the rules and mores of society, as a sociopath never internalizes any sense of right and wrong. In a country where fewer and fewer people agree about how to determine right and wrong, the bogus pseudo-answers of ethics begin to sound more and more appealing. Put another way: As we grow more sociopathic as a society, ethics makes more and more sense.

And that’s where you come in, my fine ethical friend. Your job as a public ethicist is not to teach people how best to apply the rules and obligations of a transcendent authority, as the ethicists of old once did. That would be hard. And intrusive. And divisive. And let’s face it: “transcendent authority” carries the whiff of the red state, with all the unpleasantness (NASCAR, Wal-Mart, redundant children) there attached. Neither is your job to teach philosophy. That, too, would be hard, and unsatisfying as well; when do philosophers ever agree? No, your job is to provide just enough soothing advice to scratch that fleeting itch that your affluent readership feels when confronted with moral questions that vacuous self-serving upper class prejudices can’t immediately resolve. Forget right and wrong; the role of the modern ethicist is to move puzzled smart people from a state of mild dismay to a pleasant coma of satisfied smugness in the shortest time possible. You seek to avoid not sin, but the appearance of impropriety. But a great many virtues can appear quite improper, and a great many sins can appear quite proper indeed.

Consider, for example, the “ethical” rule that precludes journalists (and quasi-journalists like yourself) from donating money to politicians and overt shill machines. You’ve correctly deduced that this rule is asinine. Suppose for a moment that you obeyed it. Would you feel any differently, write any differently, be biased against conservatives any differently if you kept your $585.00 instead of donating it? And would you suddenly evolve into a better, purer, more ethically unstoppable self if you gave that money to The Medusa Fund for Underprivileged Maoists in Malibu, instead of Kucinich for President? No, this rule does nothing to prevent bias. It rewards those sneaky enough to donate anonymously, or through a proxy, even as it penalizes those who make their political biases a matter of public record. Note that my infallible ethics problem-solving mechanism predicts this rule perfectly:

1) It’s easily implemented, so that even a sociopath can enforce it;
2) It’s easy to obey, so that even a sociopath can abide by it;
3) It gives the public the entirely false sense that journalists who abide by this rule are honorable and unbiased; and
4) It doesn’t prevent any journalist with even a lick of cleverness from secretly donating money to politicians and then copping a “fairer than thou” attitude from an unassailable position of serene non-involvement.

Modern ethics is what’s left when trust has completely evaporated between leaders and the led. Whether it’s zero-tolerance school-violence policies that get kids arrested for drawing pictures of guns, draconian anti-pedophile policies that get priests bounced on the strength of an accusation, mandatory sentencing laws that put potheads in the slammer for life, or anti-touching school policies that outlaw hugs, the theme is the same: authority doesn’t trust you, you don’t trust authority, so let’s invent some rules that make no sense but sound good while eliminating any possibility that human discretion or common sense can penetrate our ethical paradise. To badly mangle Eliot, modern ethics is a system of morality so universally applicable that no one needs to be good. Was ever a compliment more damning than “He’s an extraordinarily ethical fellow?” Don’t leave your wallet or your wife around extraordinarily ethical fellows.

A real system for determining right and wrong requires commonly held first principles and leadership with the acknowledged authority to interpret and apply those principles. That kind of agreement is in short supply these days. In modern societies where people adhering to all sorts of creeds regularly interact in order to make money, principles and dogma will tend to take a backseat to rough ‘n ready codes of conduct – and modern ethics is nothing if not rough ‘n ready. Morality is for heroes; modern ethics is for sophisters, economists, and calculators. We tolerate modern ethics, as we tolerate sophisters, but they should both know their place, and neither should command great love or respect.

So ignore the rules, Randy, and donate away. Of course, your donation will expose you as an appalling hypocrite, and you may lose your job consequently. That’s okay. Your job is stupid. Why not write a column calling men to heroic virtue instead of cocktail-party pleasantries? With your tremendous experience as a comedy writer for Rosie O’Donnell, you’re pretty well qualified for either gig.

Ethically yours,

The Obscure Conservative Legal Guy

Very interesting. Thanks!

 

[denizsi]

If one's to boast so fucking much about "professional journalism", (s)he should at least make fewer to none grammar and semantic errors (oh wait, there are podcasts now; illiteracy-friendly) and have some spine for past statements. Many non-native English speaker&writers here are miles above that d-something guy's level.

 

[Severian Silk]

Saint would never have posted PMs in the forum.

VD, you talk all about respect as if you've earned huge amounts of it. The truth is, there never was more than one Saint Proverbius, and we had to settle for you, instead.

Volumous news posts does not equate to quality news posts.

 

[Jora]

Saint would never have posted PMs in the forum.

Oh, he would have. I remember him having a lengthy debate with some journalist (?) who was outraged that Saint had made their private e-mail correspondance public. Saint then said that he did have the right to do it and yes, the guy can sue the Codex.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Yeah, I was about to say Saint's posted plenty of "private" conversations in forums before, both these ones and elsewhere. Don't see why he wouldn't have done this one too.

Though I do wonder where this "His Holiness" picture of Saint_Proverbius has come from. Just recently we had someone else claim that Saint never would've dumbfucked someone for disagreeing with him, which too, was something he'd done plenty of times. Or "Saint never would've banned them" when Saint was one of the first people to ban someone here.

Damn. It's like someone's spreading lies about his legacy.

 

[Alfgart]

I have to say that I don't like much the sarcastic style of VD and his one-liner replies. But this time he is 100% right and there is nothing to argue about that.
The PM's were about some non-important things, so ethics are out of the question. Besides, this Gamespy puppet is so utterly wrong it's deppresing and clearly show that everything the Codex says is correct about how those "professional" game sites work.

Big developer = Great review

This was a victory for the Codex against Gamespy. Now Gamespot is next hahaha.

 

[robur]

A question!

Let's say that I'm having a conversation with a game developer and he tells me something mind blowing. Some info about the company's unofficial motto and design philosophy or some info about publishers fucking a game in development up.

As a gaming journalist, what is the right - professionally - course of action? To say nothing to my audience and thus fail to provide critical info that people should know or to make the info public, which would fulfill my duty as a journalist but would breach someone's trust.

I'm genuinely curious what everyone thinks.

Hey guys,

apologies about not answering the questions in the other threads yet, week has been very crazy writing and making E3 appointments and dealing with other random stuff ... but no complaints, I will get to them before I fly down to Santa Monica.

That said, I would make this broader as it's a question about journalism, heck, people's communication in general. I would ask myself: Does the audience benefit from the information right away? Or can it serve me into building a bigger story? Sometimes journalists research for months and months before publishing a multi page feature that cause some serious trouble to the people involved. If I wasn't preparing such a feature, I'd at least ask the developer if that stuff he told me was factual - and if it was, if there would be any lifes at stake if those facts got laid open. Providing they would be genuinely interesting and new, not just cementing an already known fact, e.g. "game development is expensive", "new consoles are hard to develop for", "this game tanked because ...". See, maybe he is preparing a Postmortem for Game Developer or a similar mag himself using those things he told you as bullet points - why would I steal his own story? Bottom line: I would treat him with the same respect I wanted to get treated with. Because I believe in business relationships based on trust, not fear and desception.

Oh, VD, I had to smile at this one:

My job is to make sure that sales numbers are going up. Month after month after month. I can do whatever the fuck I want, but as long as them numbers are going up, I'm the the height or professionalism. Spiritual leader I'm not.

Now, I guess Pete Hines would say the same thing - you guys share a job description. He gets called on it, though. Just a thought.

EDIT: There would be one case in which I wouldn't care about trust or anything else: if I had learned that there would be lives at stake resulting in the (non)action of someone, I'd make sure to blow the whistle on that person straight away. Usually, in most cases, that is never the case. Which is good. Which leaves me more time to consider a proper plan of action. Would I e.g. need more information to back the things up I've learned? Then it would be foolish to go public with them right away, cause the other person might deflect everything.

 

[psycojester]

If one's to boast so fucking much about "professional journalism", (s)he should at least make fewer to none grammar and semantic errors (oh wait, there are podcasts now; illiteracy-friendly) and have some spine for past statements. Many non-native English speaker&writers here are miles above that d-something guy's level.

Aye fucking men, i'd love to know where this guy got his degree (if he's got one) with the amount of errors he made he would have never passed my first year introduction to professional writing course. You'd think any kind of professional would have had the concept kicked into head rather forcefully by now.

But then again gaming journalism is to writing what Dentistry is to medicine.

 

[John Yossarian]

Pete gets called on it for lying to make the numbers go up. If VD's VP job was game related and he lied, he would certainly be called on it at the Codex. Look at AoD's advertisement and Oblivion's if you don't see the difference.
I still remember the thread where people bitched because VD interviewed himself and didn't say so explicitly, even though it was cristal clear.

 

[Kraszu]

apologies about not answering the questions in the other threads yet, week has been very crazy writing and making E3 appointments and dealing with other random stuff ... but no complaints, I will get to them before I fly down to Santa Monica.

That said, I would make this broader as it's a question about journalism, heck, people's communication in general. I would ask myself: Does the audience benefit from the information right away? Or can it serve me into building a bigger story? Sometimes journalists research for months and months before publishing a multi page feature that cause some serious trouble to the people involved. If I wasn't preparing such a feature, I'd at least ask the developer if that stuff he told me was factual - and if it was, if there would be any lifes at stake if those facts got laid open. Providing they would be genuinely interesting and new, not just cementing an already known fact, e.g. "game development is expensive", "new consoles are hard to develop for", "this game tanked because ...". See, maybe he is preparing a Postmortem for Game Developer or a similar mag himself using those things he told you as bullet points - why would I steal his own story? Bottom line: I would treat him with the same respect I wanted to get treated with. Because I believe in business relationships based on trust, not fear and desception.

I think you are talking about something diferent then VD.
"maybe he is preparing a Postmortem for Game Developer or a similar mag himself using those things he told you as bullet points - why would I steal his own story?"

Or maybe it was just a dream, well if he is planing to write about it then obviously you could know that after conversation.

It wasn't about time disclaimer either.

"I would treat him with the same respect I wanted to get treated with. Because I believe in business relationships based on trust, not fear and desception. "

The problem is that you are not in the same business/company (or you should not consider to be) he made product and you review it, your interest often can be opposite, his is to hype the game you to tell truth about it, or your (as an journalist) tell truth about game design of some game and haw shallow it is and that developers lied about some things. Going into such social relations is good for you (as you got better atmosphere and more information) for developer (as when you socialize whit somebody it would be harder to write bad things about his product, you will see it in better light even if you try to be objective) and bad for people that read reviews and gaming journalism in general.

Also what if you are being told about something and you are asked to not tell about it, and then you have enough clues to figure it out anyway, that would put you in awkward position, developer is protecting some information by giving it to you person that should hunt for that information and reveal it.

I think that that problem should not exist, developer should not expect journalist to hide information from his readers.

 

[Severian Silk]

Are you sure this guy is who he claims to be? His English is horrid.

[edit] BTW, who does he claim himself to be? I'm confused.

 

[AnalogKid]

Because I believe in business relationships based on trust, not fear and desception.

Is that, like, when you shout *BOO* and then steal a guy's scepter or something?








(not really trying for a dig, robur, just thought it was funny)

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

Though I do wonder where this "His Holiness" picture of Saint_Proverbius has come from.

Well, wonder no more.

 

[denizsi]

Now, I guess Pete Hines would say the same thing - you guys share a job description. He gets called on it, though. Wink Just a thought.

Illiteracy +1

Don't you think that relations formed and managed between employees & employers, with both parties under the same banner (i.e. internal), has got to be different than one formed and managed between two completely different groups, i.e. public and the company, therefore public relations?

This also shows why independant, "oh noes, so unproffesshunal!!1" journalism comes forward as a lot more trustworthy and upfront. He admits some of the dirt in his hands in his job as a vice president for certain departments, and the reasons: paycheck & family. He's free of that kind of responsibility elsewhere, where he can act on morals and ethics supported by intellect, not on hollow e-respect supported by cock sucking.

Along all these things, you arrogantly talk about professional journalism and call yourself one; a profeshunal!11 journalist. Oh by the way, go back to English 101 (in case you're not a native English speaker, please don'play that card. That's not an excuse for a professhining! journalist on a profeshield payroll).

 

[Calis]

Damn. It's like someone's spreading lies about his legacy.

By 2012, he'll be a bona-fide religion. At that point, I suggest you, VD and me all start our own competing sects of Proverbism. I call dibs on making the Rhoomba into a holy figure.

 

[Claw]

Though I do wonder where this "His Holiness" picture of Saint_Proverbius has come from. Just recently we had someone else claim that Saint never would've dumbfucked someone for disagreeing with him, which too, was something he'd done plenty of times. Or "Saint never would've banned them" when Saint was one of the first people to ban someone here.

I guess it's merely an extension of the "good old times" meme.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Saint would never have posted PMs in the forum.

As others have pointed out, he did.

VD, you talk all about respect as if you've earned huge amounts of it.

Did I claim that? Have I ever demanded respect from anyone?

The truth is, there never was more than one Saint Proverbius, and we had to settle for you, instead.

You don't have to. You can go someplace else instead.

Volumous news posts does not equate to quality news posts.

I'll bite. What's a quality newspost?

Though I do wonder where this "His Holiness" picture of Saint_Proverbius has come from. Just recently we had someone else claim that Saint never would've dumbfucked someone for disagreeing with him, which too, was something he'd done plenty of times. Or "Saint never would've banned them" when Saint was one of the first people to ban someone here.

It's human nature to "holify" things that are gone and make saints out of men. Anyway, Saint *was* a better journalist and I wish he was still around.