Woah, you're putting words in my mouth, both of you, I'm just asking a question.
You're doing nothing of the sort.
Woah, you're putting words in my mouth, both of you, I'm just asking a question.
No, I merely wonder if you're taking the "financial transactions" part a bit stringently in your statement.
I'm honestly kinda left speechless on the Sexual dimorphism thing.
I really really wanna know what Anita said that got reconstrued into that. It's hurting my head to even try to think what it could be.
Preorders are maximum bias because you're giving the developer money.At what point can a reviewer personally buy a game? Also, after they buy a game from a given publisher do the forfeit their ability to ethically review another game released by that publisher? I'm trying to figure out where lines are drawn. What about preorders?
Woah, you're putting words in my mouth, both of you, I'm just asking a question.
Are men and women really equal, though? Men are usually taller and heavier than women, which seems unequal to me. Maybe feminism saying that men and women are "equal" means that feminism is bad and wrong????????????
makes u think
This is not a particularly productive or relevant argument.
I'm not actually familiar enough with the femfreq vids to comment on whether or not they endorse the Blank Slate hypothesis to any degree. Is that even a factually true point on which to hang criticism?
I'm not actually familiar enough with the femfreq vids to comment on whether or not they endorse the Blank Slate hypothesis to any degree. Is that even a factually true point on which to hang criticism?
I can't even remember her even getting close. Which is why I'm so confused by this coming up and being curious about when he thinks Anita implied it.
So they shouldn't let Jim Sterling review Warriors/Musou games because it's known that he tends to view the series a lot more favorably than most critics? Should people only review series/genres that they're completely ambivalent towards?
I mean, assuming your problem is with bias and not the actual transaction.
why is that? it doesn't make any sense. wouldn't it be the other way around completely? you pay money for something and it's shit what incentive do you have to pretend that it's good?
That doesn't make any sense. Reviewers in all genres like things they cover. A review is an explanation of why they like or don't like a thing.
I mean, I've seen internet trolls with more sound logic.
I think he's more or less doing the equivalent of learning about evolution by listening to creationists.
I wasn't talking about bias toward a genre. I was talking about specific developers/people.
Ideally reviewers should only review games from publishers/developers they have no bias/preference about. Since in many cases it is impossible - they should disclose their bias.
In the case you mentioned Jim is very transparent about liking the series and it's your decision what to make of his review. In any case it would be preferable that someone who doesn't have that bias reviewed the game instead.
In other words - if you can avoid any kind of bias - do it. If you can't - at the very least disclose it, or don't do the review (because for most games there are a lot of other reviews around).
for patreon, which is how this discussion started, i stand behind what i said.
taking your real world example, no i would say that to expense a cost back to your company wouldn't strike me as influencing you.
however, with respect to the posts that i was responding directly to, would you be ok with reviewing a copy of the evil within if you were donating to the patreons of the development team? would that be something that you're on board with as a journalist? because THAT is what i was talking about, not being fans of a series you reveiw.
In other words - if you can avoid any kind of bias - do it. If you can't - at the very least disclose it, or don't do the review (because for most games there are a lot of other reviews around).
I can't even remember her even getting close. Which is why I'm so confused by this coming up and being curious about when he thinks Anita implied it.
Nonsense. If a film critic liked Christopher Nolan's last movie, you believe they need to explicitly declare this in their review of his next movie?
I think he's talking about this part of Anita's first Damsel video.
Even those there's documented evidence (that has references so no need for that "oh, it's just wikipedia, that doesn't prove anything" attitude) shown in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans
-
I was adlibbing on the part of the "half", the rest was incredibly close to what she actually said.
-
That's one way to look at it
-
Nothing to say here
-
I believe there is some overlap between the two especially since AS provides journalistic entries on the subject of video games
I genuinely laughed
Seriously though I fear for the number of people who went to IA for info on evolution or atheism and got a whole heaping of anti-feminist lies and distortions instead.
If they are a fan of his work as a whole and not just "liked his last movie" then yes. (Edit: that is bias towards Nolan himself and not a single creation of his)
Do they think they slip inside of us when we stand up?
So many people already tuck. We're closer than we think.Retractable penises are the next evolutionary step.
I'd probably not be fine with it. We tend to not review games we Kickstarter-ed either.I'm just arguing that psychologically, buying a game with my own money, reviewing it and later expensing it, is probably as influencing as simply buying the game with my own money. The priming of the endowment effect - my money in exchange for a game - has already happened, imparting whatever subtle biases it did. The expensing part is a good after-the-fact rationalization, but honestly I'd think the effect was the same on the review whether or not it was expensed.
In as much as reviews can be shifted by subtle biases of that nature. Buying a game won't turn a negative review of a bad game into a positive one.
That's before you get into weird reviewer-specific issues like having to play and finish a game you hate. Pick a game you hate or bored you and imagine having to keep pushing through until the end? How does that effect your final thoughts on the game?
What's bizarre about mentioning that you are a fan/"hater" of the director in the review?It's definitely disappointing!
That seems completely bizarre to me. Plenty of reviewers have people they are fans of. A reviewer's job is to offer their opinion about a thing. Why would I care if they are a fan? I can read what they're saying. I can evaluate their position.
What about a reviewer reviewing the work of a creator they dislike? How would you police that, ever?
This feels more Tumblr to me than any feminist stuff.What's bizarre about mentioning that you are a fan/"hater" of the director in the review?
What's bizarre about mentioning that you are a fan/"hater" of the director in the review?
The problem is that you might think that their position is neutral while it is not.
I don't understand the "policing" question. If you know/think that you are biased - mention it (or don't do the review, if someone else can do it) . There is no way to force anyone to do it, same way you can't actually do anything about someone who is taking a bribe and doesn't disclose it. The policing in all cases is up to the writer himself and his managers.
I wasn't talking about bias toward a genre. I was talking about specific developers/people.
Ideally reviewers should only review games from publishers/developers they have no bias/preference about. Since in many cases it is impossible - they should disclose their bias.
In the case you mentioned Jim is very transparent about liking the series and it's your decision what to make of his review. In any case it would be preferable that someone who doesn't have that bias reviewed the game instead.
In other words - if you can avoid any kind of bias - do it. If you can't - at the very least disclose it, or don't do the review (because for most games there are a lot of other reviews around).
Is it time for another "Gamergaters' villain monologuing" ?
Yes it is.
Is it time for another "Gamergaters' villain monologuing" ?
Yes it is.
What's bizarre about mentioning that you are a fan/"hater" of the director in the review?
The problem is that you might think that their position is neutral while it is not.
I don't understand the "policing" question. If you know/think that you are biased - mention it. There is no way to force anyone to do it, same way you can't actually do anything about someone who is taking a bribe and doesn't disclose it. The policing in all cases is up to the writer himself and his managers.
They aren't similar at all as far as ethics are concerned. The second paragraph was about his question of "policing". That is my implication that eventually, in either case, it depends on the integrity of the writer and the company he is working for.If a writer takes a bribe and doesn't disclose it: that's a huge issue.
If a writer is a fan/not a fan and doesn't disclose it: ... I don't see the issue?
I don't see how those two are similar in the least.
I don't want them to disclose all the biases - only the major and obvious ones. Such as being a fan of the particular individual that his work you are reviewing. I see this similar to a case where you are a friend of that individual - in which case i think most people would agree that it requires disclosure.You're saying not doing so would be unethical, and I think that's ridiculous. If being a fan influences their opinion on something new to such an extent, there's no end to the number of things that could potentially influence their critique outside of the game's content.
Do we want the end of every review to include 40 paragraphs detailing the biases a reviewer entered the experience with? "I dislike jumping and mushrooms. Red is the best color, in my opinion, and I am generally deeply suspicious of dinosaur-like creatures. Also, Nintendo is my favorite developer." Phew! Now I can be sure his critique of the jumping mechanic is not taken seriously!
five months ago, i don't think there would have been any question that financial transactions between a writer and subject should be discouraged. is this only being supported now because it's an argument that gamergate has made and people are just doing the opposite?
i'll disagree with you on the "bought outright vs expensed" topic since i think that knowing that that money is coming back to you would put you in a dfferent place than knowing you paid for said product with your own money. that disctinction, however, would be personal and i guess, as a reader, i'd have to rely on a writer disclosing a bias like that if it were ever to come up.
as far as a review being shifted based on buying a game, i agree it'd would be subtle for some and even non existent for others but it's a bias that can and should be avoided.
I think reviewers should disclose if they consider any character from a game their "waifu" or "husbando", because I think this would unfairly color their opinion on a game.
Personally, my opinion on both services has changed a lot over the months and years due to conversations like this with other writers. I've mostly stopped backing video game Kickstarters (I still back a lot of board/card games), but still kind of view them as pre-order-esque and therefore don't begrudge writers who do choose to back some. On Patreon, I'm personally of the opinion that it goes too far into conflict of interest territory, and so while there's no real return on investment I don't think it's OK to continue paying money to a developer when you don't know specifically what you'll be getting month-to-month in return (as opposed to am MMO subscription, a pre-order or even a Kickstarter). As such, I personally don't fund any Patreons. But again, the service is so new and these discussions are so fresh that I actually wouldn't be too surprised if my opinion on Patreon changed at some point in the future, too. I'm staying open-minded during all these discussions.
Holy crap, that guy needs help.Is it time for another "Gamergaters' villain monologuing" ?
Yes it is.
Di-morphism is a thing but it is used as an excuse for 'Bio-essentialist/Social Darwinist' arguments that take that logic and work it back to justify existing social conditions or prejudices. In the end I meant the Sexual Di-morphism != Bio-Essentialism. I tend to be very dismissive of this and you're right it was not a constructive argument.
I can't even remember her even getting close. Which is why I'm so confused by this coming up and being curious about when he thinks Anita implied it.
Is it time for another "Gamergaters' villain monologuing" ?
Yes it is.
Hey look, another skull. ^_^
I don't want them to disclose all the biases - only the major and obvious ones. Such as being a fan of the particular individual that his work you are reviewing. I see this similar to a case where you are a friend of that individual - in which case i think most people would agree that it requires disclosure.
I think reviewers should disclose if they consider any character from a game their "waifu" or "husbando", because I think this would unfairly color their opinion on a game.
Seems legit to me.My favorite part is that they still didn't fix the sexism.