Poll: What do you think of the Escapist's new Ethics Guidelines?

[firebobm173]

As you all know, in the wake of #gamergate and the events surrounding it the Escapist has introduced new ethical guidelines [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.5]. While I personally don't approve of them and think they're too much like this [https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/508371343096565760/photo/1] and not nearly enough like this [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/08/videogames-are-for-everybody/], I would like to know what the rest of the community thinks about these changes.

 

[Agayek]

As you all know, in the wake of #gamergate and the events surrounding it the Escapist has introduced new ethical guidelines [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.5]. While I personally don't approve of them and think they're too much like this [https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/508371343096565760/photo/1] and not nearly enough like this [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/08/videogames-are-for-everybody/], I would like to know what the rest of the community thinks about these changes.

I dunno, they remind me a lot more of this [http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/], though admittedly, the Escapist's guidelines are lacking in comparison.

 

[Zhukov]

Meh.

I don't expect to notice any difference in the Escapist's output. For better or for worse.

 

[firebobm173]

I dunno, they remind me a lot more of this [http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/], though admittedly, the Escapist's guidelines are lacking in comparison.

I read those guidelines, and while they have a lot of high minded ideas there are very few specifics in there. Honestly it seems they seem like more of a pr missions statement than actual rules to follow.

 

[Agayek]

I read those guidelines, and while they have a lot of high minded ideas there are very few specifics in there. Honestly it seems they seem like more of a pr missions statement than actual rules to follow.

That's the standard and ethics of the most single most highly respected journalistic entity in the entire goddamn world. There is no greater example of what it means to be a journalist anywhere.

I'm frankly kinda insulted on their behalf that you're dismissing it as a "PR mission statement".

 

[subskipper]

RPS was I site I went to often. I don't anymore. They have showed where they want their focus to lie; games through a political and social issues lens. That is fine. Their site, their rules. More power to them. However, not all gaming outlets need to put this item at the top of their agenda. If diversity is truly important other outlets can surely exist in parallell to places like RPS. The Escapist seems to be one of them. I'm all in favour for the new guidelines.

 

[firebobm173]

As you all know, in the wake of #gamergate and the events surrounding it the Escapist has introduced new ethical guidelines [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/editorials/12223-The-Escapist-Publisher-Issues-Public-Statement-on-Gamergate.5]. While I personally don't approve of them and think they're too much like this [https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/508371343096565760/photo/1] and not nearly enough like this [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09/08/videogames-are-for-everybody/], I would like to know what the rest of the community thinks about these changes.

I dunno, they remind me a lot more of this [http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/], though admittedly, the Escapist's guidelines are lacking in comparison.

Ok, I admit I just put my foot in my mouth because I completely missed the professional guidelines section of that. I'd just like to say that I didn't mean to say that they didn't have high journalistic standards, it's just that what I read when I first went there seemed to be more pr than an actual explanation of the rules.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/508371343096565760/photo/1

What is so wrong with this? The only one I personally disagree with is the last point, as reviews are inherently subjective experiences and the reviewer's opinion is literally the entire point of the review. But besides that, what is so wrong with citing sources, trying to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and not censoring those that disagree? It isn't draconian by any stretch of the word and is done for the sake of the audience.

 

[Agayek]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/508371343096565760/photo/1

What is so wrong with this? The only one I personally disagree with is the last point, as reviews are inherently subjective experiences and the reviewer's opinion is literally the entire point of the review. But besides that, what is so wrong with citing sources, trying to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and not censoring those that disagree? It isn't draconian by any stretch of the word and is done for the sake of the audience.

From what I've gathered, that last bit is the problem.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Meh.

I don't expect to notice any difference in the Escapist's output. For better or for worse.

Yeah, I don't think that this will have any significant impact.

Maybe it will, I just won't care enough to follow it up in any detail.

 

[firebobm173]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/508371343096565760/photo/1

What is so wrong with this? The only one I personally disagree with is the last point, as reviews are inherently subjective experiences and the reviewer's opinion is literally the entire point of the review. But besides that, what is so wrong with citing sources, trying to avoid potential conflicts of interest, and not censoring those that disagree? It isn't draconian by any stretch of the word and is done for the sake of the audience.

Ok, you do realize that the second to last point in that means that no one can ever be banned or otherwise punished for what they say and do on forums right? I mean if a site ran like that it would end up like 4chan in no time. As for the rest, I think that the demands on revealing potential conflicts of interest are paranoid, would end up making it impossible to form relationships in the industry with anyone who wants to share something their boss might not want them to, and forcing people to publicly reveal who they're friends with is an outright invasion of privacy.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

snip

Harassment and trolling I am fine with eliminating and moderating, sure, you can't have pure anarchy. But once again, why should ethical standards that are basic for a high school newspaper column be seen as paranoid. Is it paranoid to report inter-office relationships to Human Resources, because that is fundamental in many places of work? Is it paranoid to provide proof that you aren't pulling shit out of your ass, something that is required on literally every paper I have written since middle school? Would all (or frankly any) relationships in the industry end if games journalists were simply required to say "For full disclosure, I kickstarted this project" or "I know so-and-so personally and am great friends with him"?

In my personal opinion, "no" is the answer to all three questions.

 

[firebobm173]

RPS was I site I went to often. I don't anymore. They have showed where they want their focus to lie; games through a political and social issues lens. That is fine. Their site, their rules. More power to them. However, not all gaming outlets need to put this item at the top of their agenda. If diversity is truly important other outlets can surely exist in parallell to places like RPS. The Escapist seems to be one of them. I'm all in favour for the new guidelines.

I'd just like to say that even in the places most focused on social issues, content based on those issues only constitutes an extremely small [https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-fe] amount of overall coverage and reporting. Just because a site has some focus on social issues does not mean that it's taking over the site.

 

[subskipper]

RPS was I site I went to often. I don't anymore. They have showed where they want their focus to lie; games through a political and social issues lens. That is fine. Their site, their rules. More power to them. However, not all gaming outlets need to put this item at the top of their agenda. If diversity is truly important other outlets can surely exist in parallell to places like RPS. The Escapist seems to be one of them. I'm all in favour for the new guidelines.

I'd just like to say that even in the places most focused on social issues, content based on those issues only constitutes an extremely small [https://storify.com/MorganRamsay/how-often-do-video-game-journalists-write-about-fe] amount of overall coverage and reporting. Just because a site has some focus on social issues does not mean that it's taking over the site.

I never said it did. For RPS though, it's prevalent enough for me to seek what I want from other outlets instead. Not just because of the articles themselves but tje way the discourse is handled and balanced on the forums and in the comments. A matter of personal taste I suppose, anf I am glad there are alternatives.

 

[Agayek]

As for the rest, I think that the demands on revealing potential conflicts of interest are paranoid, would end up making it impossible to form relationships in the industry with anyone who wants to share something their boss might not want them to, and forcing people to publicly reveal who they're friends with is an outright invasion of privacy.

I agree (mostly) with your first point, as it's perfectly acceptable for there to be a standard of behavior upheld on forums. The spirit of that item is "You must provide a means of disagreement and can't ban/censor someone just for disagreeing", instead of what you seem to perceive as "You must allow the audience to say and do anything they like regardless of standard or behavior", but the wording isn't as clear as it should be, so I'm not willing to fight over it.

Your second point however, the one I quoted, is something I take a great deal of exception to. It is not an invasion of privacy to expect a journalist to be upfront and honest with their bias. You're basically saying that it's alright for the press to encourage people to spend their hard-earned money on the press' buddy's game(s), and we should totally take it on faith that they'd never lie and say their friend's work is better than it is. And that's bullshit of the highest order. It's human nature to support your friends, and exaggerations and lies become really, really easy to rationalize when they work to that end.

It's basic consumer protection for an author to not have an emotional or financial stake in the subject, or to disclose what emotional or financial stake they do have. Otherwise, the consumer is unable to make a fully informed decision and can therefore be taken advantage of. Why is protecting you and your finances less important than a journalist saying "Hey guys, I'm buddies with the dev of this game, keep that in mind while you read this"?

 

[firebobm173]

Your second point however, the one I quoted, is something I take a great deal of exception to however. It is not an invasion of privacy to expect a journalist to be upfront and honest with their bias. You're basically saying that it's alright for the press to encourage people to spend their hard-earned money on the press' buddy's game(s), and we should totally take it on faith that they'd never lie and say their friend's work is better than it is. And that's bullshit of the highest order. It's human nature to support your friends, and exaggerations and lies become really, really easy to rationalize when they work to that end.

It's basic consumer protection for an author to not have an emotional or financial stake in the subject, or to disclose what emotional or financial stake they do have. Otherwise, the consumer is unable to make a fully informed decision and can therefore be taken advantage of. Why is protecting you and your finances less important than a journalist saying "Hey guys, I'm buddies with the dev of this game, keep that in mind while you read this"?

I'm fine with a policy of having journalists recusing themselves due to conflicts of interest, but such things should be handled internally and don't justify making journalists' social lives public knowledge.

 

[firebobm173]

Harassment and trolling I am fine with eliminating and moderating, sure, you can't have pure anarchy. But once again, why should ethical standards that are basic for a high school newspaper column be seen as paranoid. Is it paranoid to report inter-office relationships to Human Resources, because that is fundamental in many places of work? Is it paranoid to provide proof that you aren't pulling shit out of your ass, something that is required on literally every paper I have written since middle school? Would all (or frankly any) relationships in the industry end if games journalists were simply required to say "For full disclosure, I kickstarted this project" or "I know so-and-so personally and am great friends with him"?

In my personal opinion, "no" is the answer to all three questions.

Rule F clearly states that ONLY behavior that directly endangers or is otherwise illegal should be restricted, and reported to law enforcement authorities, REGARDLESS of the party responsible for it. They make it clear that only outright illegal behavior should be stopped. I mean you could spam granny porn on the board and it wouldn't be covered by this rule.

 

[Agayek]

I'm fine with a policy of having journalists recusing themselves due to conflicts of interest, but such things should be handled internally and don't justify making journalist's social lives public knowledge.

That's up to the journalist then, innit?

They could always choose to recuse themselves if they don't want those details entering the public domain. No one's forcing that specific person to be the one to write that specific story. They could always call one of their co-workers over and be like "Hey dude, I'm a little too attached here and don't want people to know I'm friends with them, so why don't you write this article and I'll take one of yours?". That way, there's no conflict of interest on the writer's part, the original writer keeps their social life private, and the audience gets honest reporting.

That's why I don't get your objections here. No one's forcing them to share their life story. All anyone's doing is demanding to know if the writer has ties to people who would benefit from the article being listened to. It's absolutely basic consumer advocacy. Why is that such a bad thing?

To be a little melodramatic: Why do you hate the consumer? Why do you hate yourself?

 

[Happiness Assassin]

snip

And I admit that there should be moderation, but what abut the rest of the points? How is having a little integrity damaging to the industry?

 

[firebobm173]

I'm fine with a policy of having journalists recusing themselves due to conflicts of interest, but such things should be handled internally and don't justify making journalist's social lives public knowledge.

That's up to the journalist then, innit?

They could always choose to recuse themselves if they don't want those details entering the public domain. No one's forcing that specific person to be the one to write that specific story. They could always call one of their co-workers over and be like "Hey dude, I'm a little too attached here and don't want people to know I'm friends with them, so why don't you write this article and I'll take one of yours?". That way, there's no conflict of interest on the writer's part, the original writer keeps their social life private, and the audience gets honest reporting.

That's why I don't get your objections here. No one's forcing them to share their life story. All anyone's doing is demanding to know if the writer has ties to people who would benefit from the article being listened to. It's absolutely basic consumer advocacy.

To be a little melodramatic here: Why do you hate the consumer? Why do you hate yourself?

Ok first off I know you were half joking with the first part but in all seriousness I do not hate the consumer (although there are serious issues with the gaming community's behavior) and I sincerely believe that any of these rules being enforced in the way they are described there would be bad for game's journalism, which would in turn be bad for both the wider gaming community and myself. As for them revealing their social lives rule A states Authors can befriend or give and receive financial support to and from devs, but MUST make this information readily available to the public. It clearly states that any friendships that are formed between journalists and developers must become readily accessible public knowledge, which I believe is both ethically unacceptable and would make it impossible to get any sort of inside information as people would know exactly where the info came from. It should be remembered that forming relationships in order to get insider information is an essential part of journalism and without it all we would have is what gaming companies want us to know.