Be Excellent To Each Other

It's not only videogames, though is it, it's nothing new, it's been going on with films for ages (interviews with stars being granted in return for not slating the film). People learn to take certain sources seriously and others not so much. The only thing which has arguably changed since the halcyon days where Amiga Power were doing all their daring exposes and basically setting the bar for journalistic integrity is that there are hardly any trusted sources for game reviews these days and that's a bit of a shame.

But yet it is easier than ever for anyone with half a brain to work out whether or not a game is dogshit before they buy it by spending three seconds typing "gametitle review" into Google and getting a feel for it from a few different places. Basically all that these PR people seem able to buy is more pre-launch hype for their titles and the odd dodgy review score here and there, they can't get positive reviews across the board for a poor game and decent games with no cocaine budget still seem to get the good scores which they deserve. I honestly can't think of a time when I feel I might have been given a bum steer by this sort of thing.

I don't know I guess I'm ambivalent about it because I can't think that it's this massive betrayal of trust when I'm not really sure that the trust was ever there to begin with.

I'm kind of baffled by people that think the woman is the issue.

The woman is collateral damage in the War Against Games Journalism's Rotten Corp (WAGJRC).

The woman is the issue if, like me, one of the parts of all this that annoys you is the threat to sue and the shitty way of dealing with it. As others have said she could've replied and stated her position in any number of ways, which would have created a more open dialogue about the whole issue which can't be bad for anyone; but she just threw out the legal threats and then hid. The initial article wasn't calling her corrupt but was just pointing out that the appearance some of these things give is iffy and people should maybe be more careful about their actions. Responding to that by suing and hiding is literally the worst most stupid thing you could do and calling people out for automatically reacting in that way is totally fair to my mind.

Except for the loss in the EU court about *the requirement to support* the right to sell on digital licenses. None of the platforms allow it, but the law requires it. I'm hopeful about which one is going to be made to change.

Respectfully, I don't think those in the peanut gallery should have gotten involved. As I said before, I think she 'hid' as a result of the shit being slung at her.

Deservedly slung at her, to be fair (other than the (according to Stu's review of her twitter feed) minority of mysognystic twits).

"The Games Media must renew the trust of its audience"

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2 ... s-audience

I don't really see how that's entirely relevant, which is the core of what I'm getting at. We all agree that slinging insults and shite at someone is wrong. We all agree it's especially depressing when it's misogynistic abuse from a still male-dominated industry. It should be implicit we all agree on that but, cool, let's get it out in the open and mention it by all means. Having done that though can we talk about the actual issue and the actions of the people involved rather than viewing it through a lens of arseholes being arseholes to someone and how shit that is?

And, on that note, it's worth pointing out that the woman in question has her own website (and undoubtedly other avenues of one-way communication available to her) which she could have used to get her side of the story across and hasn't done; instead preferring silence and legal threats. I totally understand and support actions like her shutting her Twitter feed down because, due to the nature of it, it's an unfortunate avenue through which nasty dicks can send her the kind of shit we all agree is wrong and completely indefensible. That still doesn't stop her addressing the issue properly through some other means though...

Apparently, the latest issue of MCV has a review by Wainwright of a Square Enix game.

Stop bullying her!

Link via Neogaf

http://content.yudu.com/A1zkbm/MCVNov2nd2012/

Page 40 / 41 is her "article" on Hitman

Bully!

You can read it on page 40 here.

There's also a fluff piece for Trion Worlds, who paid for the bar and the free PS3s at the GMAs.

Well personally, as a result, I think someone should find out the identity of this girl's boyfriend and associates, for a spot of "local colour", and plaster it all over the internet. Despite the fact that the actual primary injured party specifically asked for this kind of thing not to happen.








Oh.

Given the only reason they "found it out" was that it was on her public Facebook profile, that's hardly the most intrusive thing they could have done, no?

How relevant do you think stuff like this is to the actual argument/complaint though mate? In my opinion it's just nasty shit, but hey ho. If you did something I vehemently didn't agree with, it's not as though I'd cyberstalk your details from twitter, facebook or anywhere else lol, less still plaster it on a blog. What has the identity of someone's lover and/or close friend(s) got to do with it? But hey, what do I know.

I hope linking to a journalist's work so it can be read doesn't constitute bullying, or I've bullied a lot of people.

No, you're right, mate. It's not relevant, and it's hardly seemly. But it's not exactly the crime of the century. Particularly compared to, say, threatening to sue someone for them saying you'd done something you actually had done and pointing out that people might interpret what you'd done as being a bit shady.

No reason whatsoever to do it though - it can't have any bearing on the discussion.

Unless it turned out she's shagging Rab's ex.

Well, true, as per my follow up post.

That said, the "ooh, aren't they being mean", is all rather dsitracting the discussion away from Rab's initial point.

Unless her boyfriend entered and won a competition that her magazine employer was running to win stuff made by her games company employer. Which is what happened, apparently. I'd say it has bearing on the discussion now.

Or, alternatively, what he said.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/1/35872 ... y-a-secret

The prize each month was an iPad and a 10" Agent 47 figurine.

Edit -- however, http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/hitman-sniper-challenge-retail-league-now-open/0100595 shows Scammell in a mid-table position. Make of that what you will.

"David Scammell who is Lauren Wainwright’s partner"

Er, how did that not automatically invalidate him from the competition? I can't enter any competitions from Future Publishing and I'd probably not be allowed to enter any from IDG, Imagine or Dennis. More to the point, neither would my wife, due to me writing for those. So how did he win? (Or, more accurately, how was his win allowed to stand?)

How do we know this guy didn't win legitimately?

Did the other named parties also win stuff?/What is their relevance to all of this?

And doesn't it matter that this "Rab" character - whoever he is - expressly asked for this kind of muck-raking and witch-hunting NOT to happen, or are people going to indulge in it anyway irrespective, with great gusto, presumably for their own personal agendas, whatever they might be?

This is actually people investigating Intent Media policy, by way of the actions of one of their employees and their editors.

Depends entirely on the terms of the competition.

Not really, no. Starting something doesn't make you the boss of it.

But wasn't he the principal injured and/or interested party though?
If so, surely he has moral authority in this at least?

By way of example, if the mother of someone who'd been murdered or whatever said "I don't want any repercussions over this", then surely, as the principal injured and/or interested party, one would be inclined to comply even though she's not the "boss of it".

If you're going to "out" this guy publicly and insinuate and/or imply skulduggery or whatever, I'd say the burden of proof absolutely rests on you, not anyone else. What if this guy loses his job etc. over this?

So I say again: How do we know this guy didn't win this prize legitimately? (And if we don't even know that, how come he's being discussed at all?)

Oooh, he's won an iPad and a doll. Call the cops!

No.
Really, no.

Well, that clears that one up!

We dont however its normal practice (anywhere) to lock out competitions for friends and family of employees



Yes its going to happen anyway - and what's been posted here is quite tame compared to some threads on other boards.

FYI 'Rab' is Robert Florence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Florence

He's a comedian and writer , and with his friends put together a great games show which was available on the internet before youtube existed called "Consolevania" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolevania then put together a short tv series on video games for the BBC called "Video Gaiden" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Gaiden

He's also written for and played parts in many other comedy shows : http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1625152/

And he's the person who wrote the article which kicked this all off.

Nuff said, I rest my case.

Within twenty-two words, you've shifted from speculation that this is these allegations are so serious the guy could lose his job (and by implication should have been absolutely proven to criminal conviction standards), to sarcastically mocking it as only being winning "an iPad and a doll" (and by implication wholly unimportant). Which is it?

It can quite easily be both. A tiny moral problem, that by the amount of escalation that's happened around it becomes big enough that his employers would invoke their "bringing into disrepute" clause and bin him. Actions and consequences aren't necessarily the same size as each other.

I haven't shifted anything. It's a pretty simple concept here, but I shall re-explain myself to you. Someone having their name publicly dragged through the mud over entirely unproven insinuations = serious, yes. However, the issue upon which it's about, namely the winning of an iPad and a plastic doll for getting a game high score <> serious, in the grand scheme of things. As I've been saying all along.

Edit: thanks Cras, precisely mate. "Tiny moral problem" is most apt.

Oh, I knew the link was from you (that was how I saw it) -- I put it back up as a source for the quote I was cut and pasting though.

You'd be putting the principal injured party in as the judge, and there's very good reasons we don't do that and let someone outside the case choose whether to prosecute, and someone else unconnected to judge.

In other words, your example is crap and flawed.

Yup, we should totes ignore the wishes of those people actually affected by stuff, and instead rely on self-appointed judges/executioners to accuse and/or insinuate stuff that could cost people their livelihoods etc., with no actual hard proof of the things they're alleged/insinuated to have done at all.

... On that note, I think I'll head off for home and a few G&Ts with an old pal I haven't seen for a good while. 'Night.

A blizzard of wrongness, and then he was gone!



(No offence Cavey )

Man, I wish I was well enough off that I could consider (at least) £500 worth of computer equipment 'a tiny moral problem'.

It's like people saying 'who cares if games journalists are corrupt, games only cost 40 quid.'

If getting bilked to the tune of £40 a go doesn't matter to someone, they should stop buying games and give the money to me.

It's a tiny moral problem to lose your job over if you're not the one working for a game company, your girlfriend is, and there's no implication whatsoever that there was any foul play involved in him winning.

We are remembering that David Scammell is the Deputy News Editor of videogamer.com and not just a linked third party, right?

Stupid facts.

I'm amazed that anyone seriously thinks there's a position worth defending when it comes to what's been exposed here, this is institutionalised, endemic, total corruption of an entire media.

Gaming is BIG BUSINESS, billions of pounds in revenues worldwide every single year, and the entire edifice of 'games journalism' is rotten to its very core.

Journalism is supposed to hold to account, to investigate, to inquire - what is patently obvious is that no such thing exists when it comes to games journalism, and that matters.

The story does need to move beyond Wainwright and her boyfriend, and track upwards to the bigger players in this game, and it does look like that is happening. Certainly I would hate to see bit-part players hung out to dry to save the bigger fish in the pool, TBH I think the likes of Wainwright are just so steeped in the corruption of the games media that they might not even see that what they're doing and being a part of is morally wrong and corrupt.

So yes, I agree with the sentiment that Wainwright needs to be left alone, she's unfortunately acted as the lightning rod on this one, but she doesn't deserve to get fried to death - we need to track down the source of the disease, not its symptoms.