A conversation with a gaming journalist

[Naked Ninja]

Alright, let me clarify something first. What is it exactly that you want me to "prove" to you? That you broke a trust? That when someone sends you a *private* message that they implicitly expect it to be kept *private*, and that only a dim-witted child would believe otherwise? And that even if you were so dim-witted as to not understand that (and I don't believe you are that dim-witted), and the first incident was unintentional, after that he plainly stated that he didn't find it acceptable, so when you did it a second time it can't be interpretted in any other way besides intentionally breaking a trust?

Or are you wanting me to explain why acting in a trustworthy manner is important for those in positions of authority or responsability, which includes journalists? Are you really that incredibly slow? Why acting in a trustworthy manner is a cornerstone of acting in a professional, ethical manner?

Or are you wanting me to prove to you why acting ethically means acting so even when you don't like the person or don't agree with what they are saying? That ethics are something that can't be discarded like clothes you don't feel like wearing?

Or are you wanting me to prove that you can't be "half ethical"? That once you break the trust, the trust is broken? On or off, black or white.

Or are you wanting me to prove that while a journalist has a responsability to act in an ethical manner to his readers, ie by not lying to them, he also has a responsabilty to those he is corresponding with, to treat them in an ethical manner (which includes not breaking their trust) and to offer them the mutual respect they have offered you by being willing to talk to you? Do you want me to prove that a professional journalist is duty bound to act ethically to both sides of the equation?


Is it one of those, or are you wanting me to argue relative morality bullshit? Because honestly that nonsense impresses no one outside pompous psuedo intellectuals. Does every fucker who has ever taken a philosophy 1 course call this place his home?

Clarify which of these points you don't get, because I expect grown adult human beings to find it blindingly obvious, so obvious that spelling it out is silly, and I'm struggling to get which ones you don't actually understand and which ones are just the "I operate by my own code and fuck what everyone else thinks" excuses shit. You're saying I don't back up my arguments. Do I need to spell out things which are common knowledge to the majority of the adult population? Or just things which you believe don't/shouldn't apply to you?

 

[AnalogKid]

Is it one of those, or are you wanting me to argue relative morality bullshit? Because honestly that nonsense impresses no one outside pompous psuedo intellectuals.

Actually, that's a fun discussion, but not in this kind of environment. So without even going there, let's pretend that universal standards for Values, Morality, and Ethics do exist.

Do you actually believe that you are the keeper of these universal standards, and that everyone believes the same things as you? I'm talking real-world, practical, here-and-now.

THAT's a position that no "grown adult human being" should believe.

I'm not asking what the standard is. That's a discussion for other times and places. I'm just asking for your own enlightenment: Do you really believe everyone thinks like you?

Does every fucker who has ever taken a philosophy 1 course call this place his home?

Nah, just a bunch of critical thinking assholes that reflexively reject all forms of undefended blanket assertions.

 

[Koby]

Or are you wanting me to prove that you can't be "half ethical"? That once you break the trust, the trust is broken? On or off, black or white.

I would personally like to see that.

That once you break the trust, the trust is broken? On or off, black or white.

Do you really can't see different amount of 'breakage'?

Do you understand the difference between (A) promising, to your wife, to be home on 20:00, and at 19:40 instead of packing your stuff and leave you decide to stay another 10 minutes, just to finish up something, causing you to reach home at 20:10 and (B) cheating on her with another woman?

Do you understand the difference between straining a trust to breaking it to pieces?

EDIT

Here is another example, a bridge example.

Let say my work is safety insurance at the city hall and some of the city civil engineer comes and tales me there is a crack in one of the city bridges, I ask them what kind of crack and they say a crack in the concrete foundation.

So I ask them what that means, and they tell me that if that bridge need to carry several 60ton trucks the crack could expand and I say, well "we don’t allow 60ton trucks inside the city anyhow, with or without the crack in the bridge" so they go, "then it shouldn't be a problem", so just to make sure I got everything correct, I ask them "is the bridge broken?" half of them say yes and half of them say no.

What do I do?

Do I 'fix' the bridge, which mean tearing it down, building a new one instead, causing people that need to drive on that bridge to lengthen their drive by approximately 1 hour on average, depleting in the process the city coffers, (bridge cost a LOT).

Is the bridge broken?

 

[Chip]

Joynt should have just been a man and posted his thoughts in the forum. Also, in terms of 'trust' it makes a difference whether or not someone consciously confides something in you, or if they're talking trash and unwittingly come off sounding like an idiot. BTW, I never heard you raise this compaint in Bryce's "a funny PM I got from Roqua" thread.

Do you want me to prove that a professional journalist is duty bound to act ethically to both sides of the equation?

Somehow I don't expect Gambler to get pissed at you for treating people like things.
Anyway, sometimes you have to choose between the audience and the correspondents, and in that case it's best to err on the side of honesty and openess.

 

[Fez]

For those who can't be bothered to read the many unfunny pages of this circular argument: Are we on to the stage of arguing about the argument or arguing about arguing about the argument?

There was much comedy gold to start with but now it is buried under the shit, well done.

 

[sqeecoo]

Is it one of those, or are you wanting me to argue relative morality bullshit? Because honestly that nonsense impresses no one outside pompous psuedo intellectuals.

Actually, that's a fun discussion, but not in this kind of environment. So without even going there, let's pretend that universal standards for Values, Morality, and Ethics do exist.

Yup, it's a fun discussion. But let me insert a sidenote here (because I did take a philosophy 1 course) - ethics: reflexion on morality, a philosophical subgenre. So if something is "unethical", strictly speaking, it is not in the domain of ethics, and not that it goes *against* someones ethical system.

Of course, it is usually understood that way, but strictly speaking, this is wrong. Just like there can not be "several alternatives", "alternative" means the second of 2, so an alternative is a second option.

Blabla. Go on with the discussion.

 

[Kraszu]

Or are you wanting me to prove that while a journalist has a responsability to act in an ethical manner to his readers, ie by not lying to them, he also has a responsabilty to those he is corresponding with, to treat them in an ethical manner (which includes not breaking their trust)

You can't imagine situation when those two are opposite? When: not lying to readers= publishing pm?

 

[Koby]

For those who can't be bothered to read the many unfunny pages of this circular argument: Are we on to the stage of arguing about the argument or arguing about arguing about the argument?

There was much comedy gold to start with but now it is buried under the shit, well done.

circle => round

round => boobies

I did not see boobies.

 

[elander_]

Funny that most people here also find blindly obvious that journalist ethics implies that journalists should not take bribes and restrict their professional relations with the people they write about to the minimum of what their work demands and yet some arrogant dumbfucks who like to make ethic speeches, think it's irrelevant to have ethics in this case, even when it's the general consensus among professional journalists (not school rejects who work at gamespy and other dumbfucks apparently).

Also the PM was not about anyone offering information to the codex. There's some ethic code about not revealing information sources and that's the only relation between journalism ethics and disclosing some PM. And for what i recall this has never happened here.

 

[aries202]

I don't see what all the fuzz is about :

It is the truth, the gaming journalists speak. If they don't write some sort of positive review of games, they're reviewing, soon the phone calls and the invites to see new games at developers and publishers press events fades to black...

So is the nature of the capitalist world, like it not, but is the world of today. And the only thing that can change this, will be when (& if) all game magazines and websites in the world unite and say to the developers and publishers that 'sorry, we don't want to play this game anymore, as we write the reviews the way we see them, not the ways the publishers/developers would like to see them. We serve the consumers, not the publishers or developers'. That'll make it go away. But, sadly, I don't see this happening anytime soon

I'm working as a teacher. And as a teacher I sometimes have to do something that goes against my nature, both as a teacher and a sentient human being. I have to grade the students performance in class, so I do it, but I'm not happy about it. But I'll do it, because if I don't I am going to lose my job.

I also sometimes have to write something for the jobs or partake in meeting I really don't see the meaning behind. But I do it, since if I don't, I'm losing my job. And that's the game journalists dilemma: The preview events go with the jobs, and if one gaming journalist don't write the preview, another one will. And then the first gaming journalist probably also is out of a job.

And please remember that here on Earth, it is necessary to have a job to get by as we all have obligations to our family, our children or maybe have an obligition to our bank as we own a house, and need to make the house and car payments each month.

And game journalists are not different than other people in that regard...

 

[Vault Dweller]

What I find disturbing, and what inspired my comment, was that VD seems to be saying: Prove my actions were unethical by my own standards (whatever they might be) and to my satisfaction (whatever that might be) or you will be banned. Does that sound reasonable?

Have to say I agree with this. Although, VD has also offered another option to NN that is much more reasonable: just let it go and stop shouting the same shit at the top of your lungs.

Huh? Is illiteracy a bigger problem than I thought?

NN: He violated a trust. Plain and simple. Its unethical.
VD: What trust? ... You can cry "u broked his trust!!! it was privaet!!!" all you want, but without facts explaining and proving the damage and harm, it's kinda pointless and silly.
NN: You seem to be labouring under a misconception there friend. I do not need to prove to you or anyone else that what you did was unprofessional/unethical any more than I need to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. It will, and it was.
VD: That's where you are mistaken, "friend". You do need to prove it, assuming you would rather avoid being banned.

So NN made a claim that I acted unprofessional and unethical. When I asked for an explanation, he told me that he doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. Like Patrick. I'm tired of that bullshit and that attitude.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Alright, let me clarify something first. What is it exactly that you want me to "prove" to you?

You've made quite a few unsupported claims. Most of them revolve around me being unprofessional and unethical. I'd like to see these claims supported by arguments, proving your point of view.

That you broke a trust? That when someone sends you a *private* message that they implicitly expect it to be kept *private*...

I don't know what "implicitly expect" means. What I do know is that Patrick never asked me to keep the conversation private and I never said, implied, or promised that I would. I think that after I posted the first comment from his PM, which started the second PM discussion, it was very clear that I don't consider PMs to be sacred and holy. If he wanted to keep the conversation private, he should have asked me to keep it confidential. I wouldn't have broken my word.

Why acting in a trustworthy manner is a cornerstone of acting in a professional, ethical manner?

You'd have to prove why I'm not trustworthy first.

Or are you wanting me to prove to you why acting ethically means acting so even when you don't like the person or don't agree with what they are saying? That ethics are something that can't be discarded like clothes you don't feel like wearing?

Or are you wanting me to prove that you can't be "half ethical"? That once you break the trust, the trust is broken? On or off, black or white.

Sure, you can prove that too. See, I'm tired of you making claims at an alarming rate (even when you are asking questions, you insert a claim or two in them), and would like to see at least several of your positions supported by arguments. Yes? No?

Do I need to spell out things which are common knowledge ...

Considering that quite a few people disagree with you, I think the answer is yes.

 

[elander_]

And please remember that here on Earth, it is necessary to have a job to get by as we all have obligations to our family, our children or maybe have an obligition to our bank as we own a house, and need to make the house and car payments each month.

No kidding Sherlock. Also remember that here on Earth ethics in journalism is something that was introduced by professional journalists and gaming journalists aren't special human beings above the rest. Should we pretend that game sites who are being unprofessional and misleading gamers are now a good thing for gaming and not criticize them? Are you saying that lying to the public by giving a 10 score where a 7 score would apply is good because people can feed their families? If i think this way then i would not be posting here.

I'm working as a teacher. And as a teacher I sometimes have to do something that goes against my nature, both as a teacher and a sentient human being. I have to grade the students performance in class, so I do it, but I'm not happy about it. But I'll do it, because if I don't I am going to lose my job.

You don't have to tell me how the teacher job works - i'm a univ student and i have teachers in my family. If you think your job is bad then maybe you should see how it works in my country. It's the government who creates politics to pressure teachers to put as many graduated people as they can on the market, and they close their eyes to the way teachers do this. Voting in a different party is the same thing. So nobody can change things unless teachers themselves.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I don't know what "implicitly expect" means. What I do know is that Patrick never asked me to keep the conversation private and I never said, implied, or promised that I would. I think that after I posted the first comment from his PM, which started the second PM discussion, it was very clear that I don't consider PMs to be sacred and holy. If he wanted to keep the conversation private, he should have asked me to keep it confidential. I wouldn't have broken my word.

Do me a favor VD? Next time you write out a sentence like that, use the full term "private message" instead of the shorthand PM. I know, I know, it's more effort, but it might help you understand why I laugh at statements like that. Lets try substituting it in, shall we?

I don't know what "implicitly expect" means. What I do know is that Patrick never asked me to keep the conversation private and I never said, implied, or promised that I would. I think that after I posted the first comment from his private message, which started the second private message discussion, it was very clear that I don't consider private messages to be sacred and holy. If he wanted to keep the conversation private, he should have asked me to keep it confidential. I wouldn't have broken my word.

You see how silly it comes out when you don't use the shorthand? He should have asked you to keep his private message private so that you would know he wanted it kept private? Come now, thats really weak. Private message. It has no other meaning besides private message. If you chose to disregard that meaning, well, hooray for you, oh ballsey one. But don't come with this "I don't understand why he believed it should have been kept private?" nonsense.

You'd have to prove why I'm not trustworthy first.

See above

You seem to be labouring under a misconception there friend. I do not need to prove to you or anyone else that what you did was unprofessional/unethical any more than I need to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow. It will, and it was.
VD: That's where you are mistaken, "friend". You do need to prove it, assuming you would rather avoid being banned.

This is where your misconception comes in. There have already been people who said they get what I'm saying. Its not that you want me to prove it. Its that you want me to post something that will prove it to the satisfaction of "your side", the side that bandies around the relative morality nonsense. You are stating that you are the judge who gets to decide when I've successfully "proven it", as well as my debating opponent?. Come now, you know that is impossible and not even vaguely in the realm of fair. This is your misconception, that I need to play your lopsided game on your terms. I do not agree that I need to prove it to your satisfaction for it to be true. Ban away matey.

But, if we're going that direction, I challenge you to prove the opposite. Polls on a forum full of backslappers doesn't count. Come back to me when you have gathered the collected opinions of a large group of professional game journalists, developers and gamers (and not just the incredibly tiny niche represented by the Codex). You say I need to prove my opinion in order to prove that I'm worthy to stay here. Prove the same. Prove that discolsing private messages isn't considered unethical behavior. All you've expressed is the opinions of yourself and your buddies. What do you have besides saying "Thats just the way I do things!"?

 

[Claw]

All that bandwidth wasted..

 

[elander_]

If private messages were not private then anyone would be able to see them. :shock:

Besides no one ever said that private messages would never be disclosed by an administrator.

What a fucking moral victory. This is really a blow to the codex. Opps i said fuck back there.

 

[Kingston]

Shame on ye.

 

[Koby]

I don't know what "implicitly expect" means. What I do know is that Patrick never asked me to keep the conversation private and I never said, implied, or promised that I would. I think that after I posted the first comment from his PM, which started the second PM discussion, it was very clear that I don't consider PMs to be sacred and holy. If he wanted to keep the conversation private, he should have asked me to keep it confidential. I wouldn't have broken my word.

Do me a favor VD? Next time you write out a sentence like that, use the full term "private message" instead of the shorthand PM. I know, I know, it's more effort, but it might help you understand why I laugh at statements like that. Lets try substituting it in, shall we?

I don't know what "implicitly expect" means. What I do know is that Patrick never asked me to keep the conversation private and I never said, implied, or promised that I would. I think that after I posted the first comment from his private message, which started the second private message discussion, it was very clear that I don't consider private messages to be sacred and holy. If he wanted to keep the conversation private, he should have asked me to keep it confidential. I wouldn't have broken my word.

You see how silly it comes out when you don't use the shorthand? He should have asked you to keep his private message private so that you would know he wanted it kept private? Come now, thats really weak. Private message. It has no other meaning besides private message. If you chose to disregard that meaning, well, hooray for you, oh ballsey one. But don't come with this "I don't understand why he believed it should have been kept private?" nonsense.

These is this other form I visit where there is a rule that stipulate that if you have something to say and its off topic or can be perceived as a flame you take it to PMs, the administrator don’t care if you intended that as a _privet_ message or not, if it is directly at only one and it is off topic, you take it to PMs.

Why am saying this? To show you the world doesn’t work based on your principles Naked Ninja. Not everything that is send as a PM is necessarily a *private* message, the fact that only two people can view this information is duo to the medium constrain, sometimes people send a PM in order to not pollute the board with unnecessary new topic.

But you have YET AGAIN chosen to view this issue from its most narrowed point of view.

Your entire argument is nothing more then semantical.

 

[Mr Happy]

I disagree with the general consensus.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Do me a favor VD? Next time you write out a sentence like that, use the full term "private message" instead of the shorthand PM. I know, I know, it's more effort, but it might help you understand why I laugh at statements like that. Lets try substituting it in, shall we?

He should have asked you to keep his private message private so that you would know he wanted it kept private? Come now, thats really weak. Private message...

Trying to win on technicality? While one can definitely carry a private confidential conversation, PM is a good way to get attention of and talk to poster X without making redundant threads. Proof? Let me take a look at my PRIVATE message box:

- Sylvanus asked me to change his forum name.
- Thrym wanted a Warhammer Online guild forum
- Sept 13 told me that he will finish an AoD portrait by next Sunday
- Kharn shared some inside Bethesda info with me (well, this one is private)
- Briosafreak commented on my argument with Sander
- baby arm let me know that he is both alfa and omega, and that he made some changes to TCancer staff.
- Role-Player asked if he should review a few console RPGs
- A PM from Robur marked "Please don't post this" (that was before Patrick even showed up at the Codex, so the title doesn't reflect my PM posting habits).

There you go. Do I need to explain or are you able to add two and two together?

This is where your misconception comes in. There have already been people who said they get what I'm saying.

And there have already been people who said they didn't get what you are saying. What's your point?

Its that you want me to post something that will prove it to the satisfaction of "your side", the side that bandies around the relative morality nonsense. You are stating that you are the judge who gets to decide when I've successfully "proven it", as well as my debating opponent?.

No. You've made the following claims:

- I'm unprofessional
- I'm unethical
- I'm unthustworthy

I'd like to see your arguments supporting the above mentioned conclusions. No "but...but...it's so obvious that everyone but you understands it!" and "it's unprofessional because it's unethical, and it's unethical because it's unprofessional" crap.

But, if we're going that direction, I challenge you to prove the opposite. Polls on a forum full of backslappers doesn't count. Come back to me when you have gathered the collected opinions of a large group of professional game journalists, developers and gamers (and not just the incredibly tiny niche represented by the Codex).

What about the Catholic Church? I think their opinion would be very valid in this case, don't you think?

You say I need to prove my opinion in order to prove that I'm worthy to stay here. Prove the same. Prove that discolsing private messages isn't considered unethical behavior.

Unlike you I have explained my position, and that is the only thing that I asked you to do. However, to avoid "AHA!" statements, I'll briefly outline my position again:

What I did wasn't unprofessional because my job is to give my readers an accurate picture of the gaming industry: games, developers, companies, publishers, and the gaming media. I'm sure that Bethesda thinks that it was very unprofessional of me to state a year ago that Fallout 3 is neither turn-based nor isometric, but unlike Patrick's job, my job is not about always creating positive impressions and helping AAA companies to sell more copies.

Now, the ethics claim. You claim that I did something that's morally wrong (if you are talking about professional ethics, then see the paragraph above). I maintain that it wasn't and file it under "public service" - the public has the right to know what the gaming industry doesn't want to tell them. Passing to the public only official statements and carefully orchestrated, often approved preview and reviews is unethical. I'd say that journalism is about sharing with the public what other parties don't wish for the public to know, be it an informative, honest review, inside information, or an image of a gaming journalist.

And finally, the untrustworthy claim. Whose trust have I broken? Patrick's? If he wanted to keep all or some PMs private, he should have stated so or requested before continuing. I've had hundreds of discussions with game developers. I can't recall a single case where a confidential information wasn't given without specific "don't disclose" instructions. So, why didn't Patrick state so? Because the info wasn't confidential. It was a casual chit-chat, basically. It could have easily been a part of the original discussion without looking out of place. The fact that I haven't released Robur's confidential info or my Fallout 3 sources can back up my position.

Did I cause Patrick any harm? No. Like I said, it was a harmless conversation that you've blown out of proportion. Did I damage his reputation at the Codex. No, he damaged it himself. At GameSpy? No. Other than showing his bias and inability to handle arguments, he didn't reveal anything that would put his job at jeopardy. So, what seems to be the problem, officer?

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I sent patrick tubgirl

 

[Koby]

@VD - we have this new weasel tag and NN seems to be doing a lot of weaseling, I think it is a much better idea then banning, just saying.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

I don't know what "implicitly expect" means. What I do know is that Patrick never asked me to keep the conversation private and I never said, implied, or promised that I would. I think that after I posted the first comment from his private message, which started the second private message discussion, it was very clear that I don't consider private messages to be sacred and holy. If he wanted to keep the conversation private, he should have asked me to keep it confidential. I wouldn't have broken my word.

You see how silly it comes out when you don't use the shorthand? He should have asked you to keep his private message private so that you would know he wanted it kept private? Come now, thats really weak. Private message. It has no other meaning besides private message. If you chose to disregard that meaning, well, hooray for you, oh ballsey one. But don't come with this "I don't understand why he believed it should have been kept private?" nonsense.

Ooh, arguing semantics is fun! Let's. The fact that something is done in private does not mean that it cannot be made public by one of the parties involved. In fact, sometimes (as in this case), it is absolutely the right thing to do. Furthermore, the term private in "private message" does not necessarily mean or even imply that it's meant to be secret. It is the opposite of a public forum post which everyone can see, the exact same thing as an e-mail. There is no blanket rule to keep every PM, e-mail and instant message private; sometimes, even the disclaimer that something is "confidential" may not be enough. If a friend tells me he's sleeping with another friend's wife while the other is away on business, chances are my other friend will hear about it, confidentiality be damned. We all have plenty of responsibilities in this world, and sometimes said responsibilities clash. Likewise, VD has a responsibility towards his readership, and the published PMs reveal plenty about Patrick's character, as they do about Gamespy as well as the industry in general. Of course, most already figured all of this out from the 16-page thread; some needed more. Some, like yourself, have their heads so far up their own asses that no amount of verbal diarrhoea spewed by Patrick will be enough to convince them; needless to say, this thread is not meant for you.

Also, journalists not revealing sources has absolutely nothing to do with ethics, it is merely meant to insure that you'll get leads in the future. I think it's safe to say that VD took this into account and figured that anyone who can read the main thread, then read the PM, and not figure out that Patrick is a stupid, childish, arrogant, stupid, ignorant, worthless weasel of a man -- whether said person is a professional or not -- probably isn't worth his time.

As for your "psuedo intellectuals" comment -- it's quite likely that quite a few people 'round these parts have in fact taken philosophy courses, studied philosophy, or are just well-read. Perhaps it would be wise for you to take a phil 101 or ethics 101 course, as well. I'm not sure if it would shake your unfounded belief in the infallibility and universality of your own moral compass, but it might. I reckon you'll be a far better individual as a result.

Finally, what exactly is your angle here, fella? You've been awfully personal from the start. "Well done on representing "Indie Developers" btw. You've done your part to ensure the continuation of the mainstreams stereotype that we're all unprofessional. Outstanding" leads me to believe that you see this as a lost opportunity to suck some Gamespy cock in return for coverage for your game. You can always run after Patrick of course, and cry about how we're all assholes, and how professional you really are, and so forth. You may even add that you hope we all get AIDS and die, I hear that seems to be doing well when it comes to Gamespy staff.

 

[Futile Rhetoric]

I disagree with the general consensus.

Cunt.

 

[AnalogKid]

@VD - we have this new weasel tag and NN seems to be doing a lot of weaseling, I think it is a much better idea then banning, just saying.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRIVATE, YOU UNETHICAL BASTARD!!!!1 How dare you post it in a public forum. :evil: