Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

So it's about how much money you make or how many people you employ and how long you've been in business? You realize that the website is an LLC, is ad-supported and supported through referral links as well, right? Now you're attacking the qualifications of the people running it instead of the content of the report. This is literally just straw man and ad hominem and appeal to authority.

If they are to remove a site from their aggregation, by their core principle, they must declare why they are doing so. This is literally them just doing their job and doing it well.

I don't have a problem with them saying they removed a website and why. I think coming out with an 11 page report about this in the way they do is just not that good of a practice. I pointed out why, so I'm going towards the exit here seeing people are jumping on me for some reason.

 

[Kthulhu]

Kotaku does.

Yes? That's part of my point.

 

[nynt9]

I don't have a problem with them saying they removed a website and why. I think coming out with an 11 page report about this in the way they do is just not that good of a practice. I pointed out why, so I'm going towards the exit here seeing people are jumping on me for some reason.

The length of the report is due to quotes and telling a story of what transpired. People are jumping on you because you equated (via a slippery slope argument) this report to harassment of women, which is absurd.

Also, you are arguing that kotaku, a review/journalism outlet, should call out brash games, a competing review/journalism outlet for this, which is a very bad idea. Opencritic are positioned pretty well to investigate this as an independent aggregator of reviews and the integrity of their core message depends on them doing so.

 

[Flying Toaster]

But... But... Then surely they just remove those "dogshit websites"? They're the gatekeeper, after all.

I dunno. I'm glad a couple of others saw my point of view because this just seems ridiculous from where I'm sitting, but have at it I guess.

The reason Open Critic did the investigation is to keep in accordance with one of the mission statements of their site.

One could argue it is overkill but I do commend them for following through with how they believe they should run their site very few game related sites actually keep with their foundation goals.

 

[Neptonic]

Open Critic doesn't do reviews, they aggregate​ them

Yes that's what I was saying. I was talking about Kotaku not OpenCritic. That guy suggested a news site should have done a report, but a site like Kotaku runs reviews, so they would be investigating a competitor. OpenCritic only competes with Metacritic, so they have no issue investigating a review site as a third party.

 

[Kthulhu]

Yes that's what I was saying. That guy suggested a news site should have done a report, but a site like Kotaku runs reviews, so they would be investigating a competitor. OpenCritic only competes with Metacritic, so they have no issue investigating a review site as a third party.

My bad. I misread your post.

 

[Tacitus_]

Assuring transparency and 'ethical' games journalism/criticism was one of their mission statements. Hence, following through, and quite extensively. Will try reading through this myself eventually..

So what you're saying is, this is about ethics in gaming journalism

 

[Doug Heffernan]

Did the Doritos papacy sanction this investigation?

 

[Aaronrules380]

Even if they did go further than they needed to (which is up for debate), why is that a big deal? It doesn't change who's in the wrong in this situation in the slightest.

 

[Crash331]

A site that does reviews investigating another site that does reviews would look like a conflict of interest to me.

It's like Coke investigating Pepsi's treatment of it's employees.

And if they had a reason to do that, it would be well within their right to do it.

A bit weird and unorthodox, but nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, it would be more like Coke investigating a bottling company that bottles Coke. Their business could take a hit because of what the other business did, so they covered their ass.

 

[Architechnophile]

I'm not sure which Twitter accounts you're looking at, but the ones I follow (all games journalists, like myself) are pro-OpenCritic and extremely anti-Brash. We - yes, that's including me - have been ripped off by Paul Ryan. This damning report is well justified.

I'm not in favor of it—OpenCritic or their investigation. I linked to @retroremakes' thread on this on twitter—I think he does a good job of laying out the case against OC penning these sorts of reports.

During the gamergate fiasco, the scene was awash in Johnny-come-lately media mavens trying to sell themselves as independent authorities on ethics. They tended to trade in these sorts of breathlessly overwrought (also: amateurish) reports. The kind of thinking that has anyone believing some two-bit volunteer site's malfeasance is serious enough to warrant a twelve page investigative dossier is a similar kind of wrong-mindedness, and I don't trust it. It shows a bad eye for proportional response and a bad sense of one's own authority. In my opinion as a journalist OpenCritic has neither, here.

 

[Neptonic]

And if they had a reason to do that, it would be well within their right to do it.

A bit weird and unorthodox, but nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, it would be more like Coke investigating a bottling company that bottles Coke. Their business could take a hit because of what the other business did, so they covered their ass.

I was talking about Kotaku investigating brash

 

[PtM]

But... But... Then surely they just remove those "dogshit websites"? They're the gatekeeper, after all.

I dunno. I'm glad a couple of others saw my point of view because this just seems ridiculous from where I'm sitting, but have at it I guess.

It's their mission statement to be open about it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'm not in favor of it—OpenCritic or their investigation. I linked to @retroremakes' thread on this on twitter—I think he does a good job of laying out the case against OC penning these sorts of reports.

During the gamergate fiasco, the scene was awash in Johnny-come-lately media mavens trying to sell themselves as independent authorities on ethics. They tended to trade in these sorts of breathlessly overwrought (also: amateurish) reports. The kind of thinking that has anyone believing some two-bit volunteer site's malfeasance is serious enough to warrant a twelve page investigative dossier is a similar kind of wrong-mindedness, and I don't trust it. It shows a bad eye for proportional response and a bad sense of one's own authority. In my opinion as a journalist OpenCritic has neither, here.

Thanks for putting into words what I was trying to say much better.

 

[nynt9]

I'm not in favor of it—OpenCritic or their investigation. I linked to @retroremakes' thread on this on twitter—I think he does a good job of laying out the case against OC penning these sorts of reports.

During the gamergate fiasco, the scene was awash in Johnny-come-lately media mavens trying to sell themselves as independent authorities on ethics. They tended to trade in these sorts of breathlessly overwrought (also: amateurish) reports. The kind of thinking that has anyone believing some two-bit volunteer site's malfeasance is serious enough to warrant a twelve page investigative dossier is a similar kind of wrong-mindedness, and I don't trust it. It shows a bad eye for proportional response and a bad sense of one's own authority. In my opinion as a journalist OpenCritic has neither, here.

Nah. They're not acting as an authority. That thread has a flawed premise. They're explaining their reason for removing the site from their aggregation. Given that their mission statement is openness, if they didn't explain why they did this, they'd be in worse shape.

They're not purporting to be some industry watchdog. They're literally just doing their job and protecting their business. I appreciate that people are over sensitive about GG, but there are better battles to fight and OC didn't do anything wrong here.

 

[Thebeardofknowledge]

Nah. They're not acting as an authority. That thread has a flawed premise. They're explaining their reason for removing the site from their aggregation. Given that their mission statement is openness, if they didn't explain why they did this, they'd be in worse shape.

They're not purporting to be some industry watchdog. They're literally just doing their job and protecting their business. I appreciate that people are over sensitive about GG, but there are better battles to fight and OC didn't do anything wrong here.

This

I don't know what's so hard for people to understand

 

[Mattenth]

I'm saying - like other people in this thread - that I don't feel OpenCritic is the best party to publicize such reports and position itself as an authority on policing gaming websites. I don't think that is a very strange view or any indication of me willing to die on a hill or whatever.

It's not a strange view and it's something the OpenCritic team is asking right now. While we don't think this report was the "wrong thing to do," it's just a fact that there are significantly more professional and better equipped persons and teams out there to report on these types of behaviors.

We felt the need to make a statement about why Brash was removed. We're pretty sure that, if we just quietly deleted them, some of our (non-gaf) users would have noticed.

 

[Stopdoor]

This

I don't know what's so hard for people to understand

There's a large focus on the "11 pages" and "dossier" and "authority", that you can tell is trying to frame it in a certain way that OpenCritic isn't really doing. People are so caught up on the length - it's really not that long.

 

[Neptonic]

I'm not in favor of it—OpenCritic or their investigation. I linked to @retroremakes' thread on this on twitter—I think he does a good job of laying out the case against OC penning these sorts of reports.

During the gamergate fiasco, the scene was awash in Johnny-come-lately media mavens trying to sell themselves as independent authorities on ethics. They tended to trade in these sorts of breathlessly overwrought (also: amateurish) reports. The kind of thinking that has anyone believing some two-bit volunteer site's malfeasance is serious enough to warrant a twelve page investigative dossier is a similar kind of wrong-mindedness, and I don't trust it. It shows a bad eye for proportional response and a bad sense of one's own authority. In my opinion as a journalist OpenCritic has neither, here.

It's literally in OC best business interests to make sure the reviews that they have on their site were written with integrity

 

[nynt9]

It's amusing to see people who identify as journalists in this thread and on twitter be afraid of OC applying stricter standards to journalists and in return trying to paint OC as some GG outlet though.

 

[Architechnophile]

Nah. They're not acting as an authority. That thread has a flawed premise. They're explaining their reason for removing the site from their aggregation. Given that their mission statement is openness, if they didn't explain why they did this, they'd be in worse shape.

They're not purporting to be some industry watchdog. They're literally just doing their job and protecting their business. I appreciate that people are over sensitive about GG, but there are better battles to fight and OC didn't do anything wrong here.

I don't think that's borne out by the language (or sheer volume) of their PDF, which seems to by trying for the form of a government agency document, rather than the simpler sort of template you'd see used for even the most thorough customer service concerns at the biggest of big companies. Ditto for the dramatic pomp of "Investigation" and "Report." Even as an internal document (though it very clearly has a public-facing side), if OpenCritic wants to properly represent the field to its community I think this is the wrong way to do it.

Right now the gamergate hashtag on twitter is crowing about the report. And of course they would, because it's loaded with exactly the kind of specious gravitas that they absolutely eat up.

 

[L Thammy]

Why is Open Critic doing this? I don't understand? Why do they have to put out an 11-page report on the conduct of a third-party like they're Columbo or something?

Okay, I'm still getting caught up on this mess, but I have to ask. Have you ever watched Columbo? Where is the episode where he figures out the killer and then writes an 11 page report on their conduct?

 

[nynt9]

I don't think that's borne out by the language (or sheer volume) of their PDF, which seems to by trying for the form of a government agency document, rather than the simpler sort of template you'd see used for even the most thorough customer service concerns at the biggest of big companies. Ditto for the dramatic pomp of "Investigation" and "Report." Even as an internal document (though it very clearly has a public-facing side), if OpenCritic wants to properly represent the field to its community I think this is the wrong way to do it.

Right now the gamergate hashtag on twitter is crowing about the report. And of course they would, because it's loaded with exactly the kind of specious gravitas that they absolutely eat up.

Again, the length is because of it describing what transpired and all the quoted emails. And it is a result of their investigation, and it is a report. They aren't bound to their patreon backers and viewers to be transparent.

There have been good things in the past that GG has latched onto. GG have what on gearbox for allying with G2A, yet that doesn't mean we should defend G2A. G2A is shit.

 

[kenta]

I don't think that's borne out by the language (or sheer volume) of their PDF, which seems to by trying for the form of a government agency document, rather than the simpler sort of template you'd see used for even the most thorough customer service concerns at the biggest of big companies. Ditto for the dramatic pomp of "Investigation" and "Report." Even as an internal document (though it very clearly has a public-facing side), if OpenCritic wants to properly represent the field to its community I think this is the wrong way to do it.

Right now the gamergate hashtag on twitter is crowing about the report. And of course they would, because it's loaded with exactly the kind of specious gravitas that they absolutely eat up.

I don't think OpenCritic putting effort into a professional presentation should be interpreted as as attempt at an authority grab, dude. As others have said, their existence is based on transparency and this is an example of it. I don't think there's anything more sinister that needs to be inferred from this

And of course gamergate would latch onto this -- an actual example of ethics in games journalism -- to try to legitimize themselves. I respect where you're coming from but I think you're reading it the wrong way

 

[Architechnophile]

Again, the length is because of it describing what transpired and all the quoted emails. And it is a result of their investigation, and it is a report. They aren't bound to their patreon backers and viewers to be transparent.

There have been good things in the past that GG has latched onto. GG have what on gearbox for allying with G2A, yet that doesn't mean we should defend G2A. G2A is shit.

I have read the report, and I'm speaking to that content. I don't think there's much more I can add to what I've said, but there's my perspective on it for whatever that's worth.

 

[PtM]

nm

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Stopdoor]

I have read the report, and I'm speaking to that content. I don't think there's much more I can add to what I've said, but there's my perspective on it for whatever that's worth.

Is it so hard for people to say "you have some good points" if you want to back out of an argument? I get that it's tiring to argue, but man, it's something you rarely see.

 

[Architechnophile]

Is it so hard for people to say "you have some good points" if you want to back out of an argument? I get that it's tiring to argue, but man, it's something you rarely see.

I don't agree with y'all's points ; )

I also think I've fully circumscribed my entire position here—to keep going about where I disagree would just mean rewriting what I've already said. If folks disagree it's no skin off my back.

nm

Just for the record (since I saw this post before edit)—if you search around some of the related terms you'll see some of the chatter I was referring to. There were also a few other threads I'd seen that I can't track down. (Not to say they're erupting or anything, though).

 

[Stopdoor]

I don't agree with y'all's points ; )

I also think I've fully circumscribed my entire position here—to keep going about where I disagree would just mean rewriting what I've already said. If folks disagree it's no skin off my back.



Just for the record (since I saw this post before edit)—if you search around some of the related terms you'll see some of the chatter I was referring to. There were also a few other threads I'd seen that I can't track down. (Not to say they're erupting or anything, though).

There's always things you can concede on, like "There have been good things in the past that GG has latched onto. GG have what on gearbox for allying with G2A, yet that doesn't mean we should defend G2A. G2A is shit." Is there really anything to disagree with in that statement?

 

[HStallion]

I don't think that's borne out by the language (or sheer volume) of their PDF, which seems to by trying for the form of a government agency document, rather than the simpler sort of template you'd see used for even the most thorough customer service concerns at the biggest of big companies. Ditto for the dramatic pomp of "Investigation" and "Report." Even as an internal document (though it very clearly has a public-facing side), if OpenCritic wants to properly represent the field to its community I think this is the wrong way to do it.

Right now the gamergate hashtag on twitter is crowing about the report. And of course they would, because it's loaded with exactly the kind of specious gravitas that they absolutely eat up.

Gamer Gate and the like scream to the rafters over anything that they like even if its not even in agreement with their "movement" in the slightest. It feels more like you want to paint this as some sort of Gamer Gate, Alt Right associated hit piece when its a pretty dry straight forward report about why they aren't going to be dealing with brash games. It feels like you're worried about something that hasn't happened and are instead telling us to beware because something bad still might happened. When I see Open Critic talking about cucks, doxxing Brash Games employees or anything of the sort I will become concerned but as of right now it feels like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

I'm saying - like other people in this thread - that I don't feel OpenCritic is the best party to publicize such reports and position itself as an authority on policing gaming websites. I don't think that is a very strange view or any indication of me willing to die on a hill or whatever.

I haven't read the report but I don't think that's what they're saying. They're not saying that everyone should avoid "Brash Games". They're just saying "we did an investigation and because of what we found out, we're not letting their opinion matter on our site." The important word here being "our".

 

[BTA]

I'm not sure which Twitter accounts you're looking at, but the ones I follow (all games journalists, like myself) are pro-OpenCritic and extremely anti-Brash. We - yes, that's including me - have been ripped off by Paul Ryan. This damning report is well justified.

Oh, to be clear, Brash can fuck off. Nobody's pro-Brash; it's good that people know not to work for them. My issue, and what I've seen others agree with, was purely that OC shouldn't be an authority figure here.

EDIT: And the Twitter thread linked above was what I was originally referring to, for context.

 

[RiverShell]

The handwringing over what looks(IMO) to be a prrtty damning report is hilarious. This site has clearly been mistreating staffers, and seems to be a front.

 

[HStallion]

Oh, to be clear, Brash can fuck off. Nobody's pro-Brash; it's good that people know not to work for them. My issue, and what I've seen others agree with, was purely that OC shouldn't be an authority figure here.

EDIT: And the Twitter thread linked above was what I was originally referring to, for context.

Yeah but they aren't the "authority" its basically a report as to why they're not working with Brash games. Metacritic or Rottentomatoes or anyone else can still use Brash Games reviews if they really want to but OpenCritic is stating they will not and giving evidence as to why. I'm still not sure what the big deal is with the length of the report, the "authority" arguments or anything. Even funnier is somehow linking this criticism of journalism in gaming with GamerGate and I get it but its such a stretch.

 

[Architechnophile]

There's always things you can concede on, like "There have been good things in the past that GG has latched onto. GG have what on gearbox for allying with G2A, yet that doesn't mean we should defend G2A. G2A is shit." Is there really anything to disagree with in that statement?

There's nothing to concede. I don't think it's good for Gamergate to latch on to anything, because they're bad actors. They also like specious gravitas, and the report smacks of it. But the point wasn't this is bad because gamergate likes it, it was this is presumptuous in the same way that gamergate was presumptuous, which is probably why they like it

 

[HStallion]

There's nothing to concede. I don't think it's good for Gamergate to latch on to anything, because they're bad actors. They also like specious gravitas, and the report smacks of it.

GG clings onto anything that they think somehow relates to them. I've seen those fools tweet things out of context from people who have denounced them outright.

 

[nynt9]

There's nothing to concede. I don't think it's good for Gamergate to latch on to anything, because they're bad actors. They also like specious gravitas, and the report smacks of it. But the point wasn't this is bad because gamergate likes it, it was this is presumptuous in the same way that gamergate was presumptuous, which is probably why they like it

Your post is pretty presumptuous too, so surely gamergate would like it too.

See how your logic is not, well, logic?

 

[Acerac]

When your response to the detailed results of an investigation in a situation like this is effectively, "how dare [X] do that investigation" (for reasons other than obvious conflicts of interest), your opinion on it is kind of a worthless piece of trash and you should be ignored. It's textbook ad hominem.

get2sammyb

It's kind of fucked up. It's like these people don't want accountability for shady going ons.

 

[Stopdoor]

It's kind of fucked up. It's like these people don't want accountability for shady going ons.

The argument seems to be the accountability needs accountability. Which maybe works on some levels, but it'd feel easier to have that discussion if there was any indication Brash Games might have some innocence here.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Architechnophile]

Your post is pretty presumptuous too, so surely gamergate would like it too.

See how your logic is not, well, logic?

Not really here for this. Peace.

 

[Freshmaker]

No, nothing in the report is different to what Mattenth said the other day. A couple of his posts in the other thread seem to suggest he's had more dealings with Paul Ryan since creating this report and it seems like he's a jerk. Nothing in this report is a change of direction from OC though.

What of the "great strides Brash Games has been making"?

 

[nynt9]

Not really here for this. Peace.

If you can't make a point without using fallacious exaggerations, and aren't willing to defend them, then yes, you're not here for this. You made claims based on false premises that you presumed, then made poor analogies to defend those claims, then said OC are being presumptuous and gamergate are presumptuous so ...something? You just threw out scary sounding accusations without even bothering to connect them, because there really is tenuous connection there. All of this to condemn an independent review aggregator for trying to be transparent in their removing of an extremely shady site from their algorithm. If anyone's being presumptuous by bringing gamergate into this, it's you. Do you (and others in this thread along with you) have something against opencritic that you have to make ridiculous slippery slope arguments connecting it to gamergate to bring them down? Just be clear about your intentions. Nobody here thinks gamergate doesn't suck. But the connection is a really bizarre one to make.

Also, since you mentioned being a journalist, that you are complaining about an aggregator investigating the shady behavior of other journalists is not a good look on you either.

 

[Stopdoor]

What of the "great strides Brash Games has been making"?

Yeah, it's a bit weird that no side of that appears in the report. I guess it changed last minute after that blow-up?

 

[Architechnophile]

Also, since you mentioned being a journalist, that you are complaining about an aggregator investigating the shady behavior of other journalists is not a good look on you either.

Heh, ok bud.

 

[jono51]

i feel like we need another gaming review aggregator, like a "LibreCritic" or "FreeCritic", to keep OpenCritic (and by extension MetaCritic) honest.

 

[besada]

Heh, ok bud.

If you aren't going to respond to the contents of people's posts, you shouldn't be in the thread.

 

[Gestault]

There's nothing to concede. I don't think it's good for Gamergate to latch on to anything, because they're bad actors. They also like specious gravitas, and the report smacks of it. But the point wasn't this is bad because gamergate likes it, it was this is presumptuous in the same way that gamergate was presumptuous, which is probably why they like it

Your ideas here don't follow. Could you make the specific accusation clear? Like the reasoning for it. Your points here are:

• Gamergate is a bad actor
• Gamergate likes empty posturing
• You think the report is empty posturing (which can be responded to simply by looking at what the report says)
• The report and gamergate are both overplay or dramatize in the same way, which is why gamergate like it (I can't even pretend this has significance)

And you specifically say your point wasn't "this is bad because gamergate likes it," even though the only apparent rationale for bringing up gamergate is to make that connection. Otherwise, you're just saying you think the report lacked valid content. Which is easily dismissed in itself, and wouldn't require any of this comparison. Could you clear it up? I'm sure I must have missed something.

 

[Narpas Sword0]

I'm not in favor of it—OpenCritic or their investigation. I linked to @retroremakes' thread on this on twitter—I think he does a good job of laying out the case against OC penning these sorts of reports.

During the gamergate fiasco, the scene was awash in Johnny-come-lately media mavens trying to sell themselves as independent authorities on ethics. They tended to trade in these sorts of breathlessly overwrought (also: amateurish) reports. The kind of thinking that has anyone believing some two-bit volunteer site's malfeasance is serious enough to warrant a twelve page investigative dossier is a similar kind of wrong-mindedness, and I don't trust it. It shows a bad eye for proportional response and a bad sense of one's own authority. In my opinion as a journalist OpenCritic has neither, here.

This is spot on and it seems like the people reacting badly to it are misreading it

The fact that the OpenCritic guy initiated the investigation by saying that the victimized writer was an unprofessional loser makes it undeniable that OC should not be viewed as an objective industry watch dog.

It seems to me that they found some red meat/low-hanging fruit and dove on it to raise their own profile.