Jump to content
JonCole

"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

Recommended Posts

That all makes it sound like I'm arguing for that Bossy Chris guy. I'm not. He's a cretin. He demands such rigour from his opponents, but is incredibly loose and inconsistent with his own demands once they're met. I just can't decide how much of it is idiocy and how much of it is deliberate time- and energy-wasting.

 

I think a lot of it was the latter. If people are going to engage with Gamers, they need to spot these tricks. There are far too many people jumping on and falling into his trap; this huge conversation should have entailed one person giving him a link for proof and then withdrawing once he ignores it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing I always worry about in those cases, though, is that bystanders take withdrawal from conversation as admission of defeat. What I quite liked about that particular example was that quite a few different people were posting links and calling him out on his nonsense, so it didn't all fall on one person to weather his bullshit. Distributing the effort seems like the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm sure there's always a malicious side to it, but I most often see people like that using fallacies that have just been pointed out to them in previous conversations. I feel like, for many of them, it's a matter of thinking, "Oh, so that's another rule for me to follow, another way to win!" You know, as if learning how to identify (or at least to plausibly accuse someone of making) every fallacy ever will make for an airtight argument that always holds the moral high ground.

 

That's basically how I see it too.  It's the mentality that "I win because logic is on my side" when a close examination shows that no, its not.  I personally dislike even stating the formal names for fallacies because I never bothered to learn what they're actually called.  I will accept reasonable arguments that use logic but saying "You are guilty of fallacy X" as your entire response is neither instructive nor constructive.  Then again there is always a danger when asking certain people to explain themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's basically how I see it too.  It's the mentality that "I win because logic is on my side" when a close examination shows that no, its not.  I personally dislike even stating the formal names for fallacies because I never bothered to learn what they're actually called.  I will accept reasonable arguments that use logic but saying "You are guilty of fallacy X" as your entire response is neither instructive nor constructive.  Then again there is always a danger when asking certain people to explain themselves.

 

People tend to react badly if you note what fallacy they're using. If you say "that's not really relevant" you're more likely to enhance the debate, than if you say "nice straw man argument." 

 

I think fallacies are important when questioning someone's logic. It's not a "ha-ha I've won the argument" button, it's a tool for dissecting out why someone thinks the way they think. If you spot that someone's logic doesn't follow, then you can ask them questions that pertain to the logic junction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest is this rambling list of vague accusations of collusion: http://pastebin.com/PmdSbPHN

I've learned a couple things through reading people talk about this and interacting with people.

The pastbin like the video I posted earlier Digra is some evil feminist cabal. Well, I've been to Digra twice and I've met three of the people who were at the panel discussion so i've tried to explain just how paranoid and wrong the stuff in that pastebin is regarding digra and the people I'm familiar with. TThey don't want to hear from someone who actually knows something about the specific thing in question. Shocking, I know! They just read what they want and go off on wild accusations. and they seem to have no problem totally talking out their ass about things they don't know anything about -- while at the same time accusing people of talking about things they don't know about (For example, according to one person a degree in Communications is about learning how to control media. I guess I got swindled on my phd education because I didn't learn anything like that...)

 

Secondly, reading this twitter conversation with the people who put together that pastebin, it seems they have taken up the Glenn Beck school of making while accusations while saying "I'm just asking questions!" https://storify.com/newsmary/sensible-conversations-about-games-journalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember where I saw it, maybe in this thread, but these dumps of collusion and corruption was best summed up as:

 

N1lx7db.png

 

Well done whoever did that first. I'll take the credit from here, thankyouverymuch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you say "that's not really relevant" you're more likely to enhance the debate, than if you say "nice straw man argument." 

Rather than just saying "straw man", people need to say "you are misrepresenting my argument in this way". Just saying a fallacy without saying where it occurs is a lazy distraction. Also, they get a lot of mileage by spouting 'appeal to authority', since it allows them to disregard any evidence as to how the actual professional world of journalism operates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of it was the latter. If people are going to engage with Gamers, they need to spot these tricks. There are far too many people jumping on and falling into his trap; this huge conversation should have entailed one person giving him a link for proof and then withdrawing once he ignores it.

I'm inclined to agree with Ben on this. I've been that person, that troll, during my high school and early college years. When you're in that mindset, you get a certain amount of satisfaction from just eliciting a response, any response! Doesn't matter if they're proving you wrong, as long as you keep them talking more and more and wasting their time. It's a win no matter how right they are, and often you know they're right but don't care.

 

The best counter to a troll is to just straight up ignore them. If you give them the proof they desire, and they keep going, as Ben says, you just walk the fuck away. It will irritate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's something that's necessarily taught among most of them. I think instead that there's a certain type of person who wants conversation to be more mechanistic, with some kind of system for resolving disagreements, and a conceptual model wherein the first side to say something that could be interpreted as a fallacy is wrong or at least bears the burden of proof fills that role perfectly.

 

Yeah, this is a tactic I saw quite a bit more than a decade ago on an ex-cult members board. Meta-argument like this is a douchebag tactic with a long history. It's a lame appeal to authority that's within especially easy reach on the internet, and often used incorrectly to discredit people (i.e. all internet assholes seem to misunderstand what an ad-hominem attack is and refer back to that interpretation whenever they're called a name. Completely missing the obvious point that claiming another person's arguments are invalid because they used a name is itself (drumroll) a logical fallacy! Uh, I mean, zzz ¬¬).

 

 

I can't remember where I saw it, maybe in this thread, but these dumps of collusion and corruption was best summed up as:

 

N1lx7db.png

 

Well done whoever did that first. I'll take the credit from here, thankyouverymuch.

 

Heh :)

 

I got at least four unfollows on Twitter for comparing gaters to this:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the response to his repeated attempts to try and invoke logical fallacies.

 

 

One of the most infuriating parts of this whole thing to me (besides, you know, all of it) is the constant attempts by people to make their claims seem more legitimate by trying to invoke some kind of fallacy.  I have nothing but respect for actual logic, but simply stating "strawman" is not an argument.

 

Yeah, I really enjoyed that bit. Now I am imaging the paranoid homeless man from Jazzpunk just spewing the names of fallacies. "Uhhgh appeal to authority. ad hominem. hnng strawman." *vomits everywhere* "unngh no true scotsman"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That indiegogo campaign to launch a lawsuit against outlets for...something...ethics...something...is stuck in a quagmire because apparently you can't cancel an Indiegogo campaign under any circumstances.  Which is really fucked policy, it's somewhat shocking that there is absolutely no way to ever bring down a campaign on your own regardless of circumstances.  That said, I find some delicious irony in the fact that someone opened up a campaign to "investigate" journalists without bothering to read the terms and service agreement of their funding source, and is now upset and blaming Indiegogo for their own failure to educate themselves and do due diligence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That indiegogo campaign to launch a lawsuit against outlets for...something...ethics...something...is stuck in a quagmire because apparently you can't cancel an Indiegogo campaign under any circumstances.  Which is really fucked policy, it's somewhat shocking that there is absolutely no way to ever bring down a campaign on your own regardless of circumstances.  That said, I find some delicious irony in the fact that someone opened up a campaign to "investigate" journalists without bothering to read the terms and service agreement of their funding source, and is now upset and blaming Indiegogo for their own failure to educate themselves and do due diligence. 

 

oh I must have missed something about this. I saw when it got started and that a guy was raising money to hire his fiancee/wife, which seemed rather suspect. Why are they trying to close it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people were upset that they weren't upfront about the fact that the lawyer was his wife/whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"unngh no true scotsman"

Which is pretty much what he's up to himself. "Sure, the New Yorker and several independent sources claim they have a world-class fact-checking department, but I know that the article they posted was full of falsehoods, so it must not be a real one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people were upset that they weren't upfront about the fact that the lawyer was his wife/whatever.

 

Pretty much that. There was a fairly awkward AMA where the three people associated with the campaign weren't able to answer any basic questions about why they needed money, what the money would be used for or what their plan was.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/2feuyz/attorney_representing_goodgamersus_ama/

Also, the new "ethical" gaming news site that was born from gamerghazi is supposed to start posting today. That should be interesting.

http://www.goodgamers.us/

They really missed an opportunity to have goodgamers.cool. Or maybe coolgamers.cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest is this rambling list of vague accusations of collusion: http://pastebin.com/PmdSbPHN

 

I read this and have no idea what nefariousness they are actually even accusing the people involved of. Even if it's all true (it seems largely true, bar a few factual inaccuracies), the fact that people are connected/have worked together/know each other...so fucking what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this and have no idea what nefariousness they are actually even accusing the people involved of. Even if it's all true (it seems largely true, bar a few factual inaccuracies), the fact that people are connected/have worked together/know each other...so fucking what?

 

So what, you ask? So nothing, they say. It's just information. They're just digging up information for people to parse on their own, or for "real journalists" to investigate. INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREE AND THIS INFORMATION WAS PUBLIC SO WE GATHERED IT SO IT CAN BE MORE FREE AND MORE PEOPLE CAN READ IT AND MAKE WHATEVER CONCLUSIONS THEY (NOT US) CHOOSE TO MAKE ON THEIR OWN ALSO DON'T ACCUSE US OF HAVING A MESSAGE BY ASSEMBLING THIS SPECIFIC SET OF INFORMATION WE'RE JUST SHARING BECAUSE WE'RE NICE AND NICE PEOPLE SHARE THINGS LIKE INFORMATION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is super petty, but this part of their manifesto seems to be opening them up to a whole load of spam and other hugely distracting shit:

4. Your voice will always be heard

The only comments that will be deleted are ones which release personal information about another person. Period.

I mean, I get that they want a clear and pure statement of purpose, but ultimately that's unrealistic. You need flexible moderation, driven by policy, sure, but able to react to whatever weird stuff the Internet can throw at you. Unless you want the comments to basically be 4chan, which I suppose would be appropriate. Or the comments might just be dead because the site fails, but that's a different matter. But if they got inundated with advertising bots, that would be pretty counter to manifesto item number one (although not a direct contradiction, I suppose).

I don't know, perhaps they'll be lucky and there won't be a problem, but that's way too bold a promise to make. It reminds me of a youthful inclination for dogma and absolutes, unsullied by life's burden of pragmatism. Not that I know anything about the ages of these people, which I'm sure is diverse, but it makes me think of the confidence of a university student who's definitely worked out all the answers. Probably I'm reading far too much into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this and have no idea what nefariousness they are actually even accusing the people involved of. Even if it's all true (it seems largely true, bar a few factual inaccuracies), the fact that people are connected/have worked together/know each other...so fucking what?

I left a comment on the video of the guy who read the transcripts and asked him if he literally thinks there is an evil feminist cabal in Digra the orchestrated the publishing of 10 articles about gamergate on the same day (which is what he tried to tie this conference panel into and he said " I don't know about directly, but I can't believe there is no connection. " https://plus.google.com/112537849065631091220/posts/4tLpKycqARw

 

So at least this guy thinks there is litterally an evil feminist cabal in Digra and that they have some connection to the anti-gamergate articles.

 

I think in the pastebin rambling there is supposed to be some connection with that silversomthing or other publicity group that has some connection with Quin. and that someone from that group/company was at digra is evidence that digra is the heart of darkness or hellmouth or something. But hey, they aren't making accusations. They are just asking questions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is super petty, but this part of their manifesto seems to be opening them up to a whole load of spam and other hugely distracting shit:I mean, I get that they want a clear and pure statement of purpose, but ultimately that's unrealistic. You need flexible moderation, driven by policy, sure, but able to react to whatever weird stuff the Internet can throw at you. Unless you want the comments to basically be 4chan, which I suppose would be appropriate. Or the comments might just be dead because the site fails, but that's a different matter. But if they got inundated with advertising bots, that would be pretty counter to manifesto item number one (although not a direct contradiction, I suppose).

I don't know, perhaps they'll be lucky and there won't be a problem, but that's way too bold a promise to make. It reminds me of a youthful inclination for dogma and absolutes, unsullied by life's burden of pragmatism. Not that I know anything about the ages of these people, which I'm sure is diverse, but it makes me think of the confidence of a university student who's definitely worked out all the answers. Probably I'm reading far too much into it.

 

I agree with you.  I'm reminded of the problems that Jezebel had a month ago.  They were getting flooded with rape gifs because people were abusing their burner account system they had in place to protect the anonymity of sources.  This eventually resulted in a change to their comment system (actually a reversion to a previous system I think).  I can't imagine the terrifying mess that would have resulted if those kinds of comments had been allowed to continue.  A website that ignores those problems in the name of "uncensored speech" is just trying to avoid any kind of responsibility or accountability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much that. There was a fairly awkward AMA where the three people associated with the campaign weren't able to answer any basic questions about why they needed money, what the money would be used for or what their plan was.

http://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/2feuyz/attorney_representing_goodgamersus_ama/

Also, the new "ethical" gaming news site that was born from gamerghazi is supposed to start posting today. That should be interesting.

http://www.goodgamers.us/

They really missed an opportunity to have goodgamers.cool. Or maybe coolgamers.cool.

I want nothing more out of life than for this gamergamer website's first article to be "top ten hottest girls in gaming!"

 

Please, universe, I've not asked for much, but I'm begging. Make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is super petty, but this part of their manifesto seems to be opening them up to a whole load of spam and other hugely distracting shit...

 

I think their whole manifesto opens them up to bad things. Like seriously:

 

Some of us banded together to create a site for gamers by gamers, free of the corporate sponsorship and tit-for-tat we were seeing everywhere else.  This site is the result of that team.  And these promises are our promises to you, dear reader:

 

1. This site will DEFINITELY fold in six months

Google AdSense alone won't let us pay our writers anything, so there's going to be high turnover from the start. Also, if the site get any traffic at all, the cheap server we're renting probably won't be up to the task. Don't worry, it's okay! Money is evil and those who touch it are too, so the most ethical site is one run at a loss.

 

2. The articles we write will (mostly) be bland and directionless

We will write editorials about political issues, but we'll hide them deep within the site so you can't find them. Also, we'll always try to find a middle ground to claim as right, even if we have to create it ourselves, and we'll have at least four cooks in every kitchen to make sure that even the editorials that accidentally turn out good are workshopped to death.

 

3. We don't really understand what "click-baiting" is

Yes? No? Apparently there's a line to be drawn in the sand, so we drew it way over there. Hopefully it won't come up again.

 

4. Our comments section will be an unreadable cesspool of hate

What's wrong with us? We were part of #GamerGate, we know how assholes and trolls can take over any discussion. Please, don't ever scroll past the end of an article, it's not our fault. Really.

 

Also, the copywriter in me couldn't help removing the three excess commas in the opening statement. Seriously people, commas don't just act as dramatic pauses in sentences, they have a grammatical function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they'll have any endemic advertising in their AdSense stuff. That'd be pretty lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is super petty, but this part of their manifesto seems to be opening them up to a whole load of spam and other hugely distracting shit:I mean, I get that they want a clear and pure statement of purpose, but ultimately that's unrealistic. You need flexible moderation, driven by policy, sure, but able to react to whatever weird stuff the Internet can throw at you. Unless you want the comments to basically be 4chan, which I suppose would be appropriate. Or the comments might just be dead because the site fails, but that's a different matter. But if they got inundated with advertising bots, that would be pretty counter to manifesto item number one (although not a direct contradiction, I suppose).

 

 

It's a view that's popular among a certain type of reddit user that any sort of moderation is censorship and a violation of their rights. It's why they defended having literal honest to goodness child porn subreddits as "free speech." For some reason, the only thing that warrants deleting is "doxxing." Everything else is permitted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That manifesto is basically the "Let's open a bar" conversation that everyone has at some point in their life.  It seems like a good idea until you realize how much work it is and that last call exists for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×