Support NeoGAF

Marcel · May 17, 2013

Mudkips said:
Journalist reports facts, exposes fraud, gets shitcanned.
Journalism is dead.

If only things were as simple as you believe.

Mudkips · May 17, 2013

Marcel said:
If only things were as simple as you believe.

In this case they are, actually.

Zabant · May 17, 2013

This is some Grade-A BS. Not only was he blackmailed with threats of suicide if he actually did some JOURNALISM but when this individual tried to take their own life regardless, and he outed their scam and suddenly he is the one made out to be the bad guy.

God damn does this annoy me.

Kinyou · May 17, 2013

aeolist said:
they can (and did) say that fraud had occurred and the funds were not going to be used for the specified cause

that's enough justification to cancel the campaign. if people were going to blame IGG for anything after that, outing her does nothing to stop them

Do you have any proof that it didn't?

K.Sabot · May 17, 2013

Unfortunate for him, but I'm willing to bet there are some actual journalism outlets left out there in the barren wasteland of games writing that would want to take him up.

Hope he lands on his two feet after this.

faceless007 · May 17, 2013

Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.

Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.

Sophia · May 17, 2013

Mudkips said:
In this case they are, actually.

No, really. They're not. He didn't report facts. He went and made a shitstorm out of it on twitter after being told not to by his bosses.

Marcel · May 17, 2013

Mudkips said:
In this case they are, actually.

Just as simple as jumping in and not reading anything anyone has said, right?

Marcel · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.

Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.

.

kodt · May 17, 2013

You guys are missing the point. There is no expectation of journalistic integrity here because there is no such thing as gaming journalism right?

Pie and Beans · May 17, 2013

I personally think having someone threaten to commit suicide on you unless you do/dont do something is one of the most despicable things another human being can do, and it probably REALLY fucked Allistair up in the process. Employer just ganking you after that kinda thing just makes them look like shitheels, especially with the sort of things theyve defended Sterling about over and over again.

NullPointer · May 17, 2013

Wickerbasket said:
Maybe if she didn't want her personal information spread about she shouldn't have been scamming people out of money.

She has zero sympathy from me. People have a right to know where their money was going and what it was going to be used for.

Exactly this.

His "outing her" looks directly relevant to exposing her scam, and not done out of bigotry or a desire to cause harm.

People can have their personal secrets, but can't dictate how others should or will use that information, especially when others are affected.

aeolist · May 17, 2013

Kinyou said:
Do you have any proof that it didn't?

are you asking me to prove a negative

antonz · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.

Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.

He was blackmailed into not revealing anything with the threat of if you say anything I will kill myself. He was willing to aid and abet a criminal to try and keep them from killing themselves.

When that Criminal decided o try and kill themselves anyways he decided he was no longer being blackmailed and the truth could come out.

Mudkips · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that.

Journalists receive threats all the time. You don't just remove yourself from a story when you receive a threat to yourself or others. Or did the 50s, 60s, and 70s never happen?

Marcel said:
Just as simple as jumping in and not reading anything anyone has said, right?

Show me what you think I missed that invalidates my previous post.
He reported the facts, exposed fraud, and got fucked because of it.

Sophia said:
No, really. They're not. He didn't report facts. He went and made a shitstorm out of it on twitter after being told not to by his bosses.

He didn't report the facts? Then where did the facts come from? If it wasn't him, why are people mad at him? Or did he report lies? Or do you think that reporting something via Twitter somehow changes things? Or do you think that his employers are paragons of journalistic integrity for trying to bury the story?

Jburton · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.

Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.

His lack of ethics is apparent, how pertinent to the story the fact that that the fraud was for SRS which obviously outs the fraudster as trans is without question also.

RPG Wizard · May 17, 2013

Traumahound said:
They also hadn't tried to blackmail anyone into keeping quiet.

Self-harm is the worst sort of blackmail. Additionally, the blackmail proved unnecessary when her psychological distress caused her to perform the self-harm anyway. I can understand Pinsof having strong emotions due to having gotten a personal attachment to the matter as well as being personally blackmailed, but again, there were better ways to disclose the information.

I think my biggest problem with your previous examples is that you're attempting to generalize how tactful use of personal details should be applied to news stories, when it really isn't something that can have a broad brush applied to it.

Zen_Arcade said:
I don't think that would make much of a difference. She's still suicidal and will continue to be. You'd essentially be waiting until she was mentally past all of her gender issues, which could very possibly be never. I don't think this situation would have been any less impactful/damaging two months from now then it was when it happened.

I disagree entirely. The circumstances are that she is in a terrible place right now, and Pinsof's method of revealing this information is just worsening the situation. I think it would have been less impactful/damaging two months from now, in part because she wouldn't be in one of the most emotionally fragile positions possible.

As faceless007 posted, there was a good way of disseminating the information while still respecting the situation at hand.

Kinyou · May 17, 2013

aeolist said:
are you asking me to prove a negative

I'm asking you to show me that people are still threatening IGG

mikeGFG · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.

Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew personally under the guise of helping her. That is not responsible journalism.

Nah man. when someone attempts to take their own life you speak out and speak loudly.

I would have done the same thing in his shoes.

Marcel · May 17, 2013

Pie and Beans said:
I personally think having someone threaten to commit suicide on you unless you do/dont do something is one of the most despicable things another human being can do, and it probably REALLY fucked Allistair up in the process. Employer just ganking you after that kinda thing just makes them look like shitheels, especially with the sort of things theyve defended Sterling about over and over again.

He chose not to recuse himself after getting the suicide threat and furthermore took the wrong path of getting further involved, as faceless007 stated. Not acting professional just because you may have been rattled is not a free pass to do whatever.

Igo · May 17, 2013

StevePharma said:
After thinking this over I was wondering how Chloe was going to play this if everything went through as 'planned'.

Would she keep the facade and show pics of metal in a couple of blog posts?

Or would she out herself?

People were going to find out eventually if they would just follow the money. Wouldn't the situation and backlash be pretty much the same then, only delayed?

I find her despicable for trying to scam people who are willing to do good on other people, on the other hand it seems she needs some serious psychiatric guidance and I hope things will work out that way.

As for the Destructoid whistleblower, it's a lesson that whistleblowers will always get the short end of the stick.

Two possibilities. She was probably banking on people forgiving her because of the nature of the surgery, or maybe once the process was complete she wouldn't give a shit what people thought.

Akira_83 said:
is it?

If i were to be saying it should be outlawed, wouldnt THAT be selfish? but not wanting to be part of funding something i dont agree with is selfish? im not calling for SRS to be illegal

It's still pretty fucking selfish. The public should absolutely share the burden when it concerns issues of mental health. There are so many people out there who don't get the help they need because of lack of understanding and available treatment.

What is it exactly you don't agree with? The surgery itself or the underlying disorder?

TheBaronOfNA · May 17, 2013

Pie and Beans said:
I personally think having someone threaten to commit suicide on you unless you do/dont do something is one of the most despicable things another human being can do, and it probably REALLY fucked Allistair up in the process. Employer just ganking you after that kinda thing just makes them look like shitheels, especially with the sort of things theyve defended Sterling about over and over again.

That is also a pretty good point. Let's not pretend that Destructoid is a bastion of intengrity and moral high ground, even if they did the right thing in this case.

Emerson · May 17, 2013

If I properly understand this story then it is complete fucking horseshit.

The fact that she's transgender is 100% ancillary. Irrelevant. She's scamming people out of money, he reveals where the money is actually going. In the process, information she didn't want out there (because she's a liar) got public. Tough shit.

The fact that somebody lost a job over this is infinitely more tragic than whatever complaints she has.

Marcel · May 17, 2013

mikeGFG said:
Nah man. when someone attempts to take their own life you speak out and speak loudly.

I would have done the same thing in his shoes.

And that's why you aren't a journalist. And why he basically isn't anymore.

Minions · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat.

So every reporter that is threatened has to quit their stories? I imagine lots of people are threatened/blackmailed when reporting in other countries. I don't see how during an "investigation" he loses the right to post a story due to what the party in question does. I feel like this is blown completely out of proportion because he mentioned what the money was spent on, despite it being completely relevant to the scam/article.

Zen_Arcade · May 17, 2013

faceless007 said:
Also, something else that should be understood: Pinsof's relationship to the story stopped being that of a journalist the instant Sagal privately gave him a suicide threat. At that point, he was no longer a disinterested, neutral third-party reporting on a story, he became (albeit against his will) inextricably involved in his subject's personal life and carried some responsibility, however unfair, for her well-being after that. He knew that there was an imminent threat of danger to
his subject that affected his actions after that. At that point, the responsible thing to do as a journalist (and as an ethical person) is to recuse yourself from further reporting on the story, and do what you can to stop
the subject from committing suicide. If you truly feel there is a story there that still needs to be pursued, you hand off your leads to another reporter. But because he became aware that his personal involvement with the subject had compromised his ability to objectively report on the story, he should
not have continued to do so -- certainly not on Twitter and against the orders of his editor.

Pinsof was not a reporter for this story, he was a source for this story. It's a crucial difference. Pinsof publicly confirmed information that had been given to him in confidence, almost certainly off the record, and in doing so betrayed his ethical responsibility to ensure he did not compromise his subject's trust unnecessarily. He did not act as a reporter, he acted as someone who wanted to get something off his chest from a difficult situation involving someone he knew
personally under the guise of helping her.
That is not responsible journalism.

This is total bullshit. She willingly gave a reporter self incriminating evidence and then
blackmailed him on it.

By your logic anytime a reporter is told anything directly he/she shouldn't be allowed to tell anyone. Imagine if a politician told a reporter that he was involved in a money laundering scheme. That reporter is just supposed to sit on that information and act like nothing is happening? He WOULDVE reported it like a responsible journalist until this woman told him that she was going to kill herself otherwise. This entire situation was twisted into something even worse than it already was because of her actions.

MYeager · May 17, 2013

I don't think it's okay to out someone. But he made a bad decision while attempting to do something good, and he did it as an individual, not as a Destructoid writer. If he loses his job over this, then that's fucking bullshit. I'd rather someone make a mistake while attempting to help another person, than just ignoring I and walking away. Also, I feel that the possibility of being outed was part of the risk Chloe took when attempting fraud. Note, I don't think she deserved it, only that it the truth being revealed was a potential consequence of trying to gain public funding with a story that's a lie.

aeolist · May 17, 2013

Igo said:
Two possibilities. She was probably banking on people forgiving her because of the nature of the surgery, or maybe once the process was complete she wouldn't give a shit what people thought.

third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will

antonz · May 17, 2013

aeolist said:
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will

She was outed long before this guy posted on twitter. People just put their fingers in their ears and went laa laa laa when it first was reported she was a Criminal scamming people.

Horsemama1956 · May 17, 2013

There is no way in hell this company wasn't pressured in to doing this.

kodt · May 17, 2013

Horsemama1956 said:
There is no way in hell this company wasn't pressured in to doing this.

I don't think they were specifically pressured, but want to avoid looking bad given the situation.

aeolist said:
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will

I agree that she is emotionally unstable as evidenced by her actions.

However, if she had gone through with the surgery, wouldn't she be in effect outing herself?

Minions · May 17, 2013

RPG Wizard said:
Self-harm is the worst sort of blackmail. Additionally, the blackmail proved unnecessary when her psychological distress caused her to perform the self-harm anyway. I can understand Pinsof having strong emotions due to having gotten a personal attachment to the matter as well as being personally blackmailed, but again, there were better ways to disclose the information.

I think my biggest problem with your previous examples is that you're attempting to generalize how tactful use of personal details should be applied to news stories, when it really isn't something that can have a broad brush applied to it.

I disagree entirely. The circumstances are that she is in a terrible place right now, and Pinsof's method of revealing this information is just worsening the situation. I think it would have been less impactful/damaging two months from now, in part because she wouldn't be in one of the most emotionally fragile positions possible.

As faceless007 posted, there was a good way of disseminating the information while still respecting the situation at hand.

Not so sure about that. If anything it would likely cause a relapse which in turn could be even worse. At least in this case she was already getting medical attention and they could address it immediately.

Mudkips · May 17, 2013

aeolist said:
third: she was an emotionally unstable person acting irrationally and shouldn't have been put under even further pressure and scrutiny by having her gender identity posted on twitter against her will

Don't put criminals under scrutiny. They might already be under pressure.
Don't report their names or crimes to the public. They might not want the details of their crimes to be made public.

redlemon · May 17, 2013

TheBaronOfNA said:
That is also a pretty good point. Let's not pretend that Destructoid is a bastion of intengrity and moral high ground, even if they did the right thing in this case.

Dunno, in most cases where Jim has gotten in hot water the ones attacking him started off pretty low brow too from what I can remember. In fairness he does make an effort these days to be more measured in his responses and not lash out instantly.

aeolist · May 17, 2013

MYeager said:
I don't think it's okay to out someone. But he made a bad decision while attempting to do something good, and he did it as an individual, not as a Destructoid writer. If he loses his job over this, then that's fucking bullshit. I'd rather someone make a mistake while attempting to help another person, than just ignoring I and walking away. Also, I feel that the possibility of being outed was part of the risk Chloe took when attempting fraud. Note, I don't think she deserved it, only that it the truth being revealed was a potential consequence of trying to gain public funding with a story that's a lie.

regardless of the morality of what he did, he did it after his boss explicitly ordered him not to and he indicated that he wouldn't

so no matter what his job is forfeit if destructoid chooses

evil_ash_xero · May 17, 2013

So, if I swindle....say, some old people out of 30 grand, because I tell them I'm going to die without the money...and someone finds out and tells them...and then I try to kill myself because I'm outed....

That's their fault?

Well, I'm gonna go rob someone, and tell them if they tell anyone, I'll kill myself. Then they'll be the one who looks bad in the press, and lose their jobs!

Right?

Oh, only works if I'm transgender or gay? Fuck.

aeolist · May 17, 2013

Mudkips said:
Don't put criminals under scrutiny. They might already be under pressure.
Don't report their names or crimes to the public. They might not want the details of their crimes to be made public.

follow the timeline, this came weeks after the igg campaign was cancelled and refunded for fraud

ReturnOfTheRAT · May 17, 2013

Draft said:
On the bright side this guy is free to get a real job.

Yeah. This is a sign to get out of "game" journalism.

StevePharma · May 17, 2013

kodt said:
I agree that she is emotionally unstable as evidenced by her actions.

However, if she had gone through with the surgery, wouldn't she be in effect outing herself?

Yeah which is what I was asking myself in the above post.

All the arguments about the dangers of Chloe being outed as a transsexual who has had SRS would've come to light anyway.

Mr.Monitor · May 17, 2013

Draft said:
On the bright side this guy is free to get a real job.

Good point.

antonz · May 17, 2013

kodt said:
I don't think they were specifically pressured, but want to avoid looking bad given the situation.

I agree that she is emotionally unstable as evidenced by her actions.

However, if she had gone through with the surgery, wouldn't she be in effect outing herself?

Oh Destructoid was being hit hard on this by feminists etc. A few were trying to start a campaign to get Felicia Day etc involved because of prior things Said about her being a glorified booth babe etc. The Witch hunt is and was in full swing because Destructoid is the bad guy not the criminal trying to commit fraud

Minions · May 17, 2013

aeolist said:
regardless of the morality of what he did, he did it after his boss explicitly ordered him not to and he indicated that he wouldn't

so no matter what his job is forfeit if destructoid chooses

Still screams coverup. Could you imagine the conspiracy if the company had been the government telling a person not to out the story? His boss should have advised him to remove how she was spending the money, not to not cover the story entirely.

Marcel · May 17, 2013

antonz said:
She was outed long before this guy posted on twitter.

Then why get involved? If this was so public, why even become involved, let alone become an actor in the story? He chose the wrong thing to get involved in and got bit. It happens all the time in actual journalism, although there at least you don't have to deal with a bunch of armchair naive viewpoints.

QisTopTier · May 17, 2013

evil_ash_xero said:
So, if I swindle....say, some old people out of 30 grand, because I tell them I'm going to die without the money...and someone finds out and tells them...and then I try to kill myself because I'm outed....

That's their fault?

Well, I'm gonna go rob someone, and tell them if they tell anyone, I'll kill myself. Then they'll be the one who looks bad in the press, and lose their jobs!

Right?

Oh, only works if I'm transgender or gay? Fuck.

I think people are saying that telling the authorities was ok and such but busting it wide open in public wasn't. In this case due to it involving scamming charity I don't really agree.

Akira_83 · May 17, 2013

Igo said:
Two possibilities. She was probably banking on people forgiving her because of the nature of the surgery, or maybe once the process was complete she wouldn't give a shit what people thought.

It's still pretty fucking selfish. The public should absolutely share the burden when it concerns issues of mental health. There are so many people out there who don't get the help they need because of lack of understanding and available treatment.

What is it exactly you don't agree with? The surgery itself or the underlying disorder?

to be completely honest? I have no problem with the surgery itself, its more or less that the underlying disorder is really warranting of that change. that the desire to be another gender is nothing more than just that, the desire

but im not a transgender myself nor do i know anyone who is, and you know what im probably not at liberty to make remarks. apparently my previous remarks are so offensive they are banworthy so im just going to shut my mouth and eject

i tried telling my feelings on the subject WITHOUT being offensive

TheBaronOfNA · May 17, 2013

animlboogy said:
Mexican journalists (and others in too many other regions to count) today, as a another example.

Well, Mexican Journalists can also be pretty fucking shady or unethical (specially if they don't live in the north). Many good journos lose their life as well as many bad ones celebrate with politicans that help suspected narcos to take bow in the congress: http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/711466.html

RPG Wizard · May 17, 2013

Minions said:
Not so sure about that. If anything it would likely cause a relapse which in turn could be even worse. At least in this case she was already getting medical attention and they could address it immediately.

It's simply hard to say, as everyone handles problematic situations differently. It could indeed cause a relapse. It could also be that she would be strong enough and in a good enough place to be able to address the situation herself.

That said, I do feel that it would give her more options than what she currently has now.

I will again point out that it's an unpleasant situation all around, and really hard to make a definitive statement about how things could have gone if they had gone differently.

Marcel · May 17, 2013

Minions said:
Still screams coverup.

Because you say it does? This whole thing about a "cover-up" is based on no factual information at all. The implications you gather and your feelings don't count as evidence.

Akira_83 · May 17, 2013

one last question, i might have missed it but how did this guy get this story and why was she blackmailing him? did they have some kind of relationship? why was he privvy to this information and how did she know he was going to disclose?

ill admit i skimmed over part of the article

redlemon · May 17, 2013

Akira_83 said:
to be completely honest? I have no problem with the surgery itself, its more or less that the underlying disorder is really warranting of that change. that the desire to be another gender is nothing more than just that, the desire

i tried telling my feelings on the subject WITHOUT being offensive

Well you are being offensive. It wouldn't be classified as a disorder in the first place if it was only a desire.

Support NeoGAF

Destructoid writer let go over including relevant information in a story?

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

May contain jokes =>

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

XisBannedTier

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Similar threads