Support NeoGAF

[Last Hearth]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...ns-Its-Star-Citizen-Sources-Vetting-and-Respo


Relevant Text:

Using the source designations from our story, three sources (CS1, CS4, CS5) initially contacted Lizzy via separate phone calls on Sept. 26 with information they wanted to share after seeing the initial story about CIG on The Escapist. They got her number via a mutual contact. No emails were exchanged. The sources and writer agreed to chat in-depth at a later time.

Four other sources (CS2, CS3, CS6, CS7) initially contacted Lizzy via email on or before Sept. 27 The emails, numbering 32 from these four individuals, were forwarded to our EiC and Publisher, who passed that info by our legal department. It was cleared and we pursued individual personal contacts beginning the following day.

The two emails (CS8-CS9) from current employees came into Lockbin on Sept. 27. in the early morning. Lizzy exchanged at least 5-6 emails each with these sources, but they did not disclose their identity.

When it came time for followup, three sources (CS1, CS4, CS5) were contacted via phone by Lizzy on Sept. 26. One call started at 5 p.m. and lasted for an hour and 15 minutes. A second was at 6:45 p.m. and lasted for 45 minutes. The final call was at 9 p.m. for an hour an 8 minutes. All three were contacted via Skype as well to verify visual identity.

Three more sources (CS2, CS6, CS7) were contacted on Sept. 27. One call started at 9 a.m. for 30 minutes and was Skype only. This was the caller who did not give his name, but verified employment with ID and pay stubs. Call #2 was at 2 p.m. for an hour and 52 minutes, while call number 3 was at 5 p.m. for an hour and one minute. Again, all callers were visually verified after the phone call via Skype.

The last call (CS3) was on Sept. 28 at 7 p.m. for 50 minutes, again visually verified on Skype.

All sources via Skype had their pictures compared to their LinkedIn profiles or other images of them on the web to verify identities.

Chris Roberts' response to me was at 9:10 a.m. almost three hours before publication time. Unfortunately, the response ended up in my spam folder, as it came in unformated and the pictures did not load. Since Roberts did not copy Lizzy or the Editor-in-Chief, who were on my original email to CIG PR head David Swofford, they did not get them and there was no back up to ensure someone saw it. Swofford emailed me at 12:40 - after I had sent him a link to the story - asking if I had received Roberts' response. It was then that I checked my spam folder, found the response and forwarded it to Lizzy to integrate into our story, minus any personal attacks on the sources. I called Swofford at 1:02 p.m. to personally apologize for the oversight and let him know how we would be using the response in the story. Roberts' entire response on the official site showed up roughly 10-15 minutes before we updated our story on the site.

To be clear on further allegations: None of our sources were Derek Smart and we did not get our information from Glassdoor. However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

Updated response on 10/05:

The Escapist, notwithstanding Cloud Imperium Games' notice and posting, stands by its coverage of Star Citizen and intends to continue to investigate the developing story. Since publishing our original stories, we have been contacted by, and are currently interviewing, additional sources corroborating a variety of the reported allegations. Additionally, if Mr. Roberts' offer for The Escapist to "meet the developers making the game and see how we're building one of the most ambitious PC games first hand" remains open, we take the opportunity to accept such invitation so as to hopefully provide the public with sufficient information and opportunity to vet such sources' allegations and claims for themselves. We have also communicated the foregoing directly to Cloud Imperium Games.

 

[Dictator93]

I am also curious about the "mutual contact".

 

[JehutyRunner]

So are most of us thinking the same thing regarding who the 'mutual contact' is, right?

 

[Sinatar]

None of their sources were from glassdoor, yet several comments were lifted word for word from glassdoor?

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3n6lum/escapist_anonymous_sources_uncovered

Ok escapist.

 

[Solid Raiden]

They stated that none of the sources were Derek Smart but I wonder if they can or will clarify that he is not the mutual contact (if he is not the source) with how much it looks like he very much was.

 

[Krejlooc]

Then explain this

http://imgur.com/a/xXyaC

Doesnt their unnamed sources seem silly in light of named sources coming out and saying the opposite?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

None of their sources were from glassdoor, yet several comments were lifted word for word from glassdoor?

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3n6lum/escapist_anonymous_sources_uncovered

Ok escapist.

However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

GAF jumped to other devs throats with less, but I guess CiG and they awesome PC graphics have a free pass.

 

[mcrommert]

Bullshit...this whole thing stinks...

 

[tuxfool]

To be clear on further allegations: None of our sources were Derek Smart and we did not get our information from Glassdoor. However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

http://i.imgur.com/PWzLlFz.jpg

Does this kind of description really inspire confidence in their stories?

Then there are people stating that they have worked for the company for over 3 years. IIRC 3 years ago the company was 7 people.

 

[Sinatar]

GAF jumped to other devs throats with less, but I guess CiG and they awesome PC graphics have a free pass.

Really so you think a CIG employee had a phone conversation with this Lizzy, and then immediately went to Glass Door and posted word for word what they said on the phone.

Really?

 

[Dictator93]

Really so you think a CIG employee had a phone conversation with this Lizzy, and then immediately went to Glass Door and posted word for word what they said on the phone.

Really?

Hey! When I vent my emotions and accuse people of racism, bigotry, and fraud... I always write a script down first.

 

[Last Hearth]

None of their sources were from glassdoor, yet several comments were lifted word for word from glassdoor?

https://www.reddit.com/r/starcitizen/comments/3n6lum/escapist_anonymous_sources_uncovered

Ok escapist.

First of all, they aren't word for word.

Secondly they addressed this in the article which you apparently didn't read.

"To be clear on further allegations: None of our sources were Derek Smart and we did not get our information from Glassdoor. However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Really so you think a CIG employee had a phone conversation with this Lizzy, and then immediately went to Glass Door and posted word for word what they said on the phone.

Really?

I believe that maybe on of the guys thought It was a good idea to post on glassdoor one of his email/chat exchanges, is plausible, rather than the paranoic Derek Smart conspiracy.

Escapist saying they check their background info and their legal department gave them the OK.

All you have is conjectures, know what group made a whole hate campaign of conjectures?

Not even a page in and you're already dismissively deciding GAF's position in aggregate. Cool, man. I look forward to your further posts on this topic.

Past and this thread have been terribly defensive of CiG, which, yeah, raises a few questions of the double standards some people here afront similar matters.

No one raised their eyebrow when "sources" talked about shitty gaming workplaces, in similar cases.

 

[mjp2417]

GAF jumped to other devs throats with less, but I guess CiG and they awesome PC graphics have a free pass.

This has nothing to do with "they awesome PC graphics" and everything to do with the reliability and integrity of The Escapist. If an article from The Blaze was posted on here, I would hope the forum would be skeptical about its claims.

 

[Krejlooc]

All you have is conjectures, know what group made a whole hate campaign of conjectures?

Actually, all this "story" is, is conjecture. And it is countered with sourced quotes.

 

[inky]

GAF jumped to other devs throats with less, but I guess CiG and they awesome PC graphics have a free pass.

The glassdoor quotes are word for word, all posted withing the last week while it is usually more gradual than that (usually, different ex-employee posts are separated by months). Jump on CIG all you want, but The Escapist's article is a joke of a hit piece. How convenient that the reply from the CEO went to the spam mail and they rushed out to post without reply. It is ethically reprehensible to post flimsily sourced but serious accusations of racism and bigotry without giving the other person a chance to answer them.

The Escapist's article is garbage. Pure conjectures and allegations that are extremely shady to begin with. At least wait for a more reputable source to write about it, then you can all start dancing on CIG's grave.

 

[Effect]

First of all, they aren't word for word.

Secondly they addressed this in the article which you apparently didn't read.

"To be clear on further allegations: None of our sources were Derek Smart and we did not get our information from Glassdoor. However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

Also why would anyone think they would need to change what they say when writing it down in another location? If one describes A and B to someone why wouldn't they continue to use the same descriptions when talking to someone else at a later date or putting down their thoughts? Regardless if you believe things to be true or not I don't get the argument here that something is wrong because two things match up, especially if they're potentially from the same person.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Actually, all this "story" is, is conjecture. And it is countered with sourced quotes.

They claimed they checked their backgrounds, so that's goes beyond simple conjectures.

Unless you mean, they lied on that, which a couple of posts on another forum can barely count as a proof for that...

 

[The Technomancer]

This gets tricky

The Glassdoor thing makes things implausible

But the Escapist is really doubling down if they actually fucked up

 

[Machina]

Escapist are in deep with this

 

[Dictator93]

They claimed they checked their backgrounds, so that's goes beyond simple conjectures.

Unless you mean, they lied on that, which a couple of posts on another forum can barely count as a proof for that...

Let's say for a moment that the escapist is being 100% genuine in everything they just described. Did they vet the information of their confidential "informants" for validity?

Like, an ex employee of a company says "my boss is a poopy face" is not really much news or investigative journalism at all. THe informations is barely news worthy.

BUT! The news that they are racist, frauds, who are doing criminal actions is. Did they check and ask for secondary sources (emails, technical documents, recordings, etc...) to verify such serious allegations?

This is otherwise all hearsay... even if any of the sources are real.
----

You ever see the movie deep throat?

 

[Last Hearth]

Also why would anyone think they would need to change what they say when writing it down in another location? If one describes A and B to someone why wouldn't they continue to use the same descriptions when talking to someone else at a later date or putting down their thoughts? I don't get the argument here that something is wrong because two things match up, especially if they're potentially from the same person.

Because people are desperate to prove that the writer had no sources, and made them up by pulling a couple of quotes off glassdoor.

There are 2 possibilities here:

1. Escapist writer made the whole sources thing up, and the log of interview conversations, the vetting of the identity, the discussion with legal counsel, all of which were detailed in the article, none of it happened.

2. They did happen, they have sources, which were verified.


I personally find option 1 very difficult to believe given the level of detail in this article.

Now even if you believe 2, there are still 3 possibilities:

1) The sources lied about the pertinent facts.

2) The sources exaggerated some of the pertinent facts

3) The sources were telling the truth.

For me the first question is no longer for debate, but the 2nd is still up in the air.

 

[RipperGrim]

People wanting them to reveal sources really don't know how this kind of thing works, if they do then who exactly is going to approach them for any more stories similar to this and trust that confidentiality is kept?

 

[Jackpot]

Hey! When I vent my emotions and accuse people of racism, bigotry, and fraud... I always write a script down first.

Some contacts were email.

Also, some posters are about to enter the Gies "anonymous sources are my favourite kind of sources" fallacy. The sources are anonymous to us, for obvious reasons. They are not anonymous to the author. I can only imagine people saying "workers posting good things about their boss used their real names, ergo workers posting negative things must too" are being willfully disingenuous.

There are plenty of things to criticise the article for, there's no need to sink down to gator level with such shittery.

 

[Metroidvania]

None of our sources were Derek Smart and we did not get our information from Glassdoor. However, we do know that a couple sources did post on Glassdoor after talking to Lizzy.

Well, that's not suspicious at all.

So they got 'paystub' and an 'employment ID badge' as verification with one employee, then 'visually ID'd' the others? What does 'visually identify' mean? Checking someone's face on Skype vs their Linkedin profile?

 

[Last Hearth]

Let's say for a moment that the escapist is being 100% genuine in everything they just described. Did they vet the information of their confidential "informants" for validity?

Like, an ex employee of a company says "my boss is a poopy face" is not really much news or investigative journalism at all. THe informations is barely news worthy.

BUT! The news that they are racist, frauds, who are doing criminal actions is. Did they check and ask for secondary sources (emails, technical documents, recordings, etc...) to verify such serious allegations?

This is otherwise all hearsay... even if any of the sources are real.
----

You ever see the movie deep throat?

But isn't talking to multiple sources a means of verification. One person saying something has little credibility, but if 6 or 7 different people corroborate each other, it becomes a lot more credible, no?

 

[Dictator93]

Some contacts were email.

Indeed.

What do you think of my comment above?

But isn't talking to multiple sources a means of verification. One person saying something has little credibility, but if 6 or 7 different people corroborate each other, it becomes a lot more credible, no?

I to be honest am not sure, the degree of certainty is not something I judge all the time. I would imagine you need something more than just someone's word against someone elses. Hence why I mention deep throat where it was about getting hard information and hard primary sources to connect the dots: instead of just words of a person.

 

[Effect]

Well, that's not suspicious at all.

So they got 'paystub' and an 'employment ID badge' as verification with one employee, then 'visually ID'd' the others? What does 'visually identify' mean? Checking someone's face on Skype vs their Linkedin profile?

I would assume identifying someone via staff photo (publicly available or provide by another employee) or stream footage of various staff or anything having to do with employee activity was previously made available.

 

[Krejlooc]

They claimed they checked their backgrounds, so that's goes beyond simple conjectures.

"Someone told me this is legit" is still conjecture...

 

[Krejlooc]

Some contacts were email.

Also, some posters are about to enter the Gies "anonymous sources are my favourite kind of sources" fallacy. The sources are anonymous to us, for obvious reasons. They are not anonymous to the author. I can only imagine people saying "workers posting good things about their boss used their real names, ergo workers posting negative things must too" are being willfully disingenuous.

There are plenty of things to criticise the article for, there's no need to sink down to gator level with such shittery.

This breaks down when we have sources that are NOT anonymous to us claiming the exact opposite.

 

[Htown]

So what kind of email service sends replies to messages you've sent to your spam folder?

 

[tuxfool]

Also, some posters are about to enter the Gies "anonymous sources are my favourite kind of sources" fallacy. The sources are anonymous to us, for obvious reasons. They are not anonymous to the author. I can only imagine people saying "workers posting good things about their boss used their real names, ergo workers posting negative things must too" are being willfully disingenuous.

For sure. But then there is the problem with any company. A former employee or employees can say anything they want and there is no confirmation from secondary sources. I mean, wouldn't they have written record, emails, whatever proving these things happened.

Who are these people that have seen financial records that prove financial mismanagement or embezzlement. This isn't exactly information that floats around the company.

 

[Antilurker77]

This whole controversy is just he said vs she said with neither side being able to provide solid evidence.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

So what kind of email service sends replies to messages you've sent to your spam folder?

Yeah this part reeks to high holy heaven.

 

[ScatheZombie]

Then explain this

http://imgur.com/a/xXyaC

Doesnt their unnamed sources seem silly in light of named sources coming out and saying the opposite?

It is not uncommon for disgruntled employees to group together. When you are in a toxic environment (or you perceive yourself to be in a toxic environment) you naturally gravitate towards like-minded individuals and away from "kool-aid drinkers". During my last job, when everything was going to shit, a group of developers also publicly (and anonymously) slammed the company via Glassdoor. And each of them did so in relatively quick succession because someone would post up their review and show it off to their colleagues, who would then do the same. And you end up with 4 or 5 bad reviews in a matter of a few days.

And then the cronies would come out of the woodwork to defend the company. The best part of it all is ... neither group is actually lying. Different roles on the team can have drastically different experiences with management. I have only seen 2 other 'developers' counter the accusations and both of them are from the community team. The community team is going to have a completely different experience from a grunt-level implementation developer is going to have a completely different experience from a lead.

Plus, the two 'dev' responses were both laden with double-speak that it's pretty clear that things aren't 100% fine within the studio. They mostly just disagreed with the severity of said toxicity. I mean, it's pretty easy to read between the lines of Hennessy and Huckaby and see that there is clearly the foundations of a work environment that your average developer would find less than appealing.

 

[anariel]

This whole thing is a damn mess, one that's quickly devolved into a 'he said, she said' ordeal.

I can't see anything productive coming of this, regardless of who's telling the truth. It became way too inflammatory way too fast.

 

[tuxfool]

It is not uncommon for disgruntled employees to group together. When you are in a toxic environment (or you perceive yourself to be in a toxic environment) you naturally gravitate towards like-minded individuals and away from "kool-aid drinkers". During my last job, when everything was going to shit, a group of developers also publicly (and anonymously) slammed the company via Glassdoor. And each of them did so in relatively quick succession because someone would post up their review and show it off to their colleagues, who would then do the same. And you end up with 4 or 5 bad reviews in a matter of a few days.

And then the cronies would come out of the woodwork to defend the company. The best part of it all is ... neither group is actually lying. Different roles on the team can have drastically different experiences with management. I have only seen 2 other 'developers' counter the accusations and both of them are from the community team. The community team is going to have a completely different experience from a grunt-level implementation developer is going to have a completely different experience from a lead.

Plus, the two 'dev' responses were both laden with double-speak that it's pretty clear that things aren't 100% fine within the studio. They mostly just disagreed with the severity of said toxicity. I mean, it's pretty easy to read between the lines of Hennessy and Huckaby and see that there is clearly the foundations of a work environment that your average developer would find less than appealing.

Then you have something like this:
http://i.imgur.com/PWzLlFz.jpg

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Let's say for a moment that the escapist is being 100% genuine in everything they just described. Did they vet the information of their confidential "informants" for validity?

Like, an ex employee of a company says "my boss is a poopy face" is not really much news or investigative journalism at all. THe informations is barely news worthy.

BUT! The news that they are racist, frauds, who are doing criminal actions is. Did they check and ask for secondary sources (emails, technical documents, recordings, etc...) to verify such serious allegations?

This is otherwise all hearsay... even if any of the sources are real.
----

You ever see the movie deep throat?

I would say that getting hold of actual evidence is not as easy as movies make it sound, maybe they tried to get proof, but is not like CiG would willingly do voice records exposing their criminal behaviours or expose to the company mail list any of these things.

Maybe they shouldn't ran with the history, but if CiG feels that they have a case, they are free to start legal moves to protect their image.

That said, that dosn't really proof that everything these confidents say is not real, specially if people proof are a couple of posts on another forums and it's apparent implausibility of being there and the history being real.

When work conditions about Activision came out, no one doubted the "sources", because Activision is "evil" I guess.

"Someone told me this is legit" is still conjecture...

"Someone told me this is legit and they actually worked there" is beyond a simple conjecture, I'd say.

 

[Last Hearth]

Indeed.

What do you think of my comment above?


I to be honest am not sure, the degree of certainty is not something I judge all the time. I would imagine you need something more than just someone's word against someone elses. Hence why I mention deep throat where it was about getting hard information and hard primary sources to connect the dots: instead of just words of a person.

You are fully within your right to not believe the sources are telling the truth, that's a judgement call everyone has to make for themselves.

But I think accusations of journalistic malpractice, that they are somehow obligated to personally verify the claims of their sources even though they have 6 or 7 corroborating sources or not publish at all, is a standard no journalistic publication can be held to.

 

[wrowa]

So what kind of email service sends replies to messages you've sent to your spam folder?

She wrote an email to Swafford, but got a response by Chris Roberts. I don't see why Swafford and Roberts would share an email adress.

 

[Krejlooc]

But I think accusations of journalistic malpractice, that they are somehow obligated to personally verify the claims of their sources even though they have 6 or 7 corroborating sources or not publish at all, is a standard no journalistic publication can be held to.

They published and article claiming racist hiring practices without even hearing from the accused.

 

[tuxfool]

They published and article claiming racist hiring practices without even hearing from the accused.

And further charged that naked embezzlement was occurring right in front of their faces. I have to question how brazen a person has to be to steal from the company in full view of all employees.

 

[Krejlooc]

"Someone told me this is legit and they actually worked there" is beyond a simple conjecture, I'd say.

You mean they told you they worked there, which you believe.

 

[Sinatar]

Did they verify the positions these employees hold? Are any of them in a position to have the information they claim? I somehow doubt any of them had access to the company financials for example.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

You mean they told you they worked there, which you believe.

They claim that they did checked and not outright and blindly believe them.

They are doubling down on this, and you have the same couple of images, presumably proving they did not, which barely count as a proof.

You can argue that they should not ran with the history, given the accusations and the lack of actual evidence. But you can't argue that the sources were fake, or at least do it with something tangible...

 

[Instro]

When work conditions about Activision came out, no one doubted the "sources", because Activision is "evil" I guess.

There's a difference between believing that a workplace has some issues and the staff may be overworked vs believing management is embezzeling money and is outright racist/sexist.

With regards the glass door reviews, some of those posts are from a day or two prior to their supposed timeline...

 

[OrlanisWorks]

In for a pound and all that.

Doesn't look good. I still don't find the sources to appear credible. All these details can be easily fabricated if all you have to do is say you got some sources, how they contacted you, and for how long. It still looks unbelievable, or at the least very suspect.

 

[Naminator]

Also why would anyone think they would need to change what they say when writing it down in another location? If one describes A and B to someone why wouldn't they continue to use the same descriptions when talking to someone else at a later date or putting down their thoughts? Regardless if you believe things to be true or not I don't get the argument here that something is wrong because two things match up, especially if they're potentially from the same person.

It makes perfect sense, I mean think about it, have you ever seen the same person tell the same story in 2 different places? I think not!

This whole thing sticks to high heaven I tell ya!

/s

 

[Myggen]

What a mess.

 

[Yushi]

I have seen many co-workers get fired...all with very good reasons to get fired. It's easy to see them try to band up and sue a company. Whenever I see people complain about a company, I always have to see the other side of things. But even then, it's not easy to see the truth.

Meh is all I have to say. I don't care how horrible it was for them. Still want a good game.